IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI J.:- With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the hearing of this petition is being treated as pacca one.
2. Vide notification issued under Section 3 of The Works of Defence Act, 1903 (VII of 1903) read with Section 7 thereof published on 16.10.1979, the Federal Government was pleased to declare the restrictions detailed below to the land situated in the vicinity of the works mentioned in the schedule attached with such notification:- "1. Within a radius of 1143 meters from the perimeter of the works of defence, no variation shall be made in the ground level and no building, wall, bank or other construction above the ground shall be maintained, erected, added to or altered otherwise than with the written approval of the Station Commander at the Station concerned and on such conditions as he may prescribe.
2. The sketch plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of the District in which the said work is situated. "
The petitioner having holding in the said land to the extent of 2 Kanals , 2-Marlas situated in Khasra No.8739, village Niaz Baig, Multan Road, Lahore, has been forbidden from undertaking any practical steps in her titled and owned land by not erecting any building, wall, bank etc. and also from altering nature of the said land in any manner without written approval of the Station Commander concerned. Such restrictions were imposed in 1979 without giving any timeframe, as to how long such restrictions would continue to have effect upon the landed property of the petitioner .
During the hearing of this petition, the respondents were called to think over the possibility of shifting of Ammunition Depot in question from its present location, to which, on 11.04.2017, Additional Military Estate Officer, Lahore Circle, Lahore Cantt stated before the Court that removal of Ammunition Depot from Niaz Baig has been ordered and alternate suitable place has been arranged for such purpose, but for reasons best known to authorities in Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, the shifting was not started. After having recorded such statement of Additional Military Estate Officer, the Secretary , Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan was directed to appear in person to clarify such position on 27.04.2017. However , a Senior Joint Secretary , Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan attended the proceedings on 10.05.2017, but was not in a position to give any definite timeframe in which Ammunition Depot from Niaz Baig, Multan Road, Lahore could have been shifted and therefore, the learned Federal Law Officer was directed to address arguments on merits on this Constitutional petition. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that on 23.05.2017, it was committed on behalf of Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan in writing that it will take approximately six years to shift the Ammuni tion Depot of Niaz Baig, Multan Road, Lahore from its present location to proposed location at Pattoki. However , today i.e. 10.10.2017 on final hearing, learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan has even withdrawn from such proposal on the ground that the land, which was acquired at Pattoki for the said purpose has not been found suitable for the required standards as a result of Geo-T echnical Survey of the acquired land and as such, with certaint y no period can be committed in which possibly the Ammunition Depot can be shifted.
3. Earlier other affected land owners of the same notification whose lands also fall with the radius of 1143 meters from the perimeters of the works of defence preferred Writ Petitions No.3327 of 2003 and 8433 of 2005, which were finally decided on 13.09.201 1 by this Court. Such petitions were for limited purposes of getting compensation of the lands in question after 30.06.1994 from when admittedly the authorities stopped to pay the land owners the amount of compensation, which was being paid earlier , but in view of letter dated 10.03.1995 by the Military Estate Officer, Lahore Circle Lahore Cantt, such payment was stopped for the reason that the lands were never acquired and ownership of the same still vest with the writ petitioners and petitioners were not held entitled to receive any compensation by the Military Estate Officer. This Court, however , accepted the writ petitions and directed the respondents to start payment of the compensation after 30.06.1994 till time the restrictions imposed through notification of 1979 remain in field.
In the present case, the respondents have not shown any payment of any amount of compensation to the petitioner as against the restrictions imposed by means of impugned notification.
4. All what has been done by the respondents was under the jurisdiction vested in the said respondents/Federal Government within the meaning of a piece of legislation enacted during the era of slavery and the Masters, who were ruling this subcontinent enacted such law for the lands of their slaves.
Once Islamic Republic of Pakistan emerged on the globe in 1947 as an indepe ndent State, the people of free Pakistan in 1973 through their representatives in the National Assembly , adopt, enact and give to themselves, the Constitution, which reflects the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order , which inter alia guaranteed the fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality .
Article 23 thereof provides a fundamental guarantee to every citizen to have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restriction imposed by law in the public interest. In the same manner , Article 24(1) of The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides a guarantee that no person shall be compulsorily deprived of his property save in accordance with law, whereas Article 24(2) provides that no property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of save for a public purpose, and save by the authority of law which provides for compensation therefor .
The schedule annexed with the impugned notification provides 10 stations, where restrictions were imposed under Section 3 of The Works of the Defence Act, 1903 (VII of 1903), which include Abbotabad, Peshawar , Sargodha, Multan, Karachi, Lahore, Gujranwala, Sahiwal, Jhelum and Quetta. The list, where Ammunition Depots are functioning, does not end here, as even other citizens of Pakistan are catering for such services.
It reminded the day of 10 April, 1988, which in fact was a day of great calamity before doomsday for Rawalpindi city, when all of a sudden a hell broke loose in Ojhri Camp at Murree Road, Rawalpindi, which is almost the central point of twin cities i.e. Rawalpindi and Islamabad, as missiles were flying across the inhabited localities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Although there has been no accepted statistical data available to date, but a careful account put the figure of deaths close to 4000 in the said accident. No concrete inquiry was ever conducted regarding said incident and if conducted, it never made public and it is still a mystery, as to whether it was anth accident or an intentional attempt to put cover on what was received in the said Ammunition Depot meant for storage of ammunition of every nature received from United States of America and its other allies meant for Afghan Mujahideen fighting against Soviet forces in Afghanis tan and twin cities were littered with missiles, artillery shells and projectiles on a day, when American Team was arriving to take account of the vast amount of military hardware meant to be stored in such Ammunition Depot.
The very presence of such Ammunition Depots in the inhabited areas would be a constant threat to the human lives both on account of an accident or an intentional step of criminal nature, which could not be ruled out in view of accident of Ojhri Camp. It would be beneficial to refer that veteran politician Kalsoom Saifullah in her book published in September , 2011 in Pakistan has notified the Pakistani nation that it was none other than the ruler of that time himself, who ordered the explosion to be carried out in Ojhri Camp, so that the threat of American checking of stringer missiles could be avoided.
In view of such horrifying chapter of our national life, till the time, such Ammun ition Depots are functioning in inhabited localities, the possibility cannot be ruled out that such havoc can be played at any time in order to achieve the designs of any stakeholders of adventurous nature. Simple answer to such big question of our national calamity is that our inhabited localities must be saved from such dangerous dumps, which are situated within the residential areas and such Depots, stores must be established outside the inhabited localities.
Till the time, such alternate arrangements are made, the authorities concerned instead of imposing such unreasonable restrictions with reference to the areas outside the boundary walls of Ammunition Depots must be bound down to acquire the land, which possibly would be affected from the effects of the stocks stored in such Ammunition Depot and such required land would be subject to the land acquisition under the law against which the land owners are supposed to be compensated adequately as against the price of their land.
The provisions of Sections 3 read with Section 7 of The Works of Defence Act, 1903 are in fact in complete negation of the Constitutional guarantees provided under Articles 23 and 24 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Constitution, which the people of Pakistan through their parliamentarians adopt and enact, must be respected and given preference to the law promulgated by the Masters in the days of our slavery .
Practically when the provisions of The Works of Defence Act, 1903 are acted upon and given preference, it would remind the independent nation of Pakista n the days of slavery and the owners of the land, whose lands situate in the vicinity of such Ammunition Depots, for which restrictions have been imposed under Section 3 and 7 of The Works of Defence Act, 1903, can only look towards their landed property wistfully .
5. Although the Constitutional guarantees with reference to the properties are made subject to law, but where restrictions are imposed for unlimited period, the same cannot be considered as "reasonable restrictions" as enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and as such, the restrictions imposed through the impugned notification for an indefinite period are not "reasonable restrictions". This Court, while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not supposed to leave the people of Pakistan, who were subject to Constitution as helpless against the atrocities of the public functionaries and the rights and guarantees promised with the people of Pakistan must practically be given ef fect beneficially to them and such rights must jealously be guarded.
6. In view of above discussion, there is no other option with this Court but to allow this Constitutional petition as prayed for .
7. The respondents are provided a period of one year from today to arrange complete shifting of the present Ammunition Depot from village Niaz Baig, Multan Road, Lahore to any other suitable place and if at all, the land of the petitioner is required by the respondents for the purposes of Ammunition Depot in question, the same be acquired strictly in accordance with the provisions of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by payment of compensation at the present market value. The respondents are also directed to work out as to what is due in favour of the petitioner towards rent of the land, which remained under restrictions for the period from when such payment was stopped to the petitioner till time, the actual possession of the land in question is handed over to her and restrictions imposed through impugned notification are withdrawn or the land in question is acquired strictly under the law .