SHAHID KARIM, J.---- This constitutional petition has the following prayer: "It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that an appropriate writ/order/mandate may be issued to the respondents for performing their duties to restore/return the land in favour of the petitioner for compensation which was paid to them at the time of the acquisition of the land. It is further prayed that any other relief in addition to the relief prayed for may also be granted to redress the grievance of the petitioners, the cost may also be allowed."
2. In essence therefore, the petitioners seek the return and restitution of the land in their favour in lieu of compensation which was paid to them at the time of the acquisition of the land.
3. By way of historical facts, it may be stated that the land of the petitioners measuring 206-Kanal and 2-Marlas was acquired by the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), respondent No.3. The notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, 1894) was issued on 14-9-1966 and the award was announced on 11.6.1967. It is common ground between the parties that the land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. Both the parties remained dormant over the years until the year, 1990 when a letter was written to the petitioners on behalf of PBC referring to we meeting of the Board of Directors of the PBC held on 20.01.1990 with regard to the land which was acquired for setting up Receiving Centre Multan. An offer for sale of the land to the original owners was made at the price fixed by the Revenue Department. In that letter it was also mentioned that Tehsildar had reported that the original owners were not interested in re-purchasing the land from PBC and PBC was free to dispose of the land at its will. Also the petitioners were given one month's time to reply to the said letter in follow up letter written on 4.2.1990 and addressed to the petitioners Abdul Qadir Shah Gillani and Syed Sharaf Hussain Shah (the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners). The letter also stated that in ease no reply was received within one month, it will be presumed that the petitioners were not interested in the purchase of land and PBC shall be at liberty to dispose of the land in any manner . A reference may also be made to letter dated 20.07.1989 previously written to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and contained therein an offer to sell the land to them and seeking their consent to the purchase of land on prevalent market rate. Thus the process for selling the land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had been triggered even prior to the decision of the Board or Directors on 20.01.1990. Be that as it may. Annexure 'M' is a reply to the letter written on 4.2.1990 and received on 16.2.1990. In that reply the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners did not give their consent to the purchase of land on the price fixed by PBC and which according to them was on commercial basis and not as agricultural land. In short, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners showed their willingness to purchase the land as agricultural land and not on commercial basis. More importantly , the reply is undated and therefore it cannot be ascertained whether the reply was given within one month of the proposal which was made to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners.
4. The entire reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the reply given by the predecessor-in-interest and on this basis the argument which has been addressed by the learned counsel is that once an offer has been made it cannot be resiled from and PBC is estopped from taking a contrary decis ion. This argument. I am afraid, cannot prosper .
5. Firstly , the decision made by PBC was not responded to within time given by PBC, that is one month of the making of the proposal and clearly in the letter itself the proposal was deemed to have been withdrawn if it was not responded to within one month of the issuance of the letter . There is no proof that the reply was furnished within one month of the receipt of the letter . Secondly , in a subsequent meeting held on 29.7.1990 a different decision seems to have been made by the Board which contradicts in material terms the earlier decision of the Board relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners dated 20.01.1990. That decision was to the following ef fect:-- "The matter was discussed in detail and it was decided that since the PBC has the option either to sell out the land on commercial basis on the prices evaluated by the Revenue Department or to keep it as it is for future use, the said land may be disposed of as and when expedient through an open sale."
6. It can be seen that the Board took a decision on 29.7.1990 which was contrary to the earlier decision and, therefore, the earlier decision stood superseded by the subsequent decision. In the latter decision, there was no mention of the land being resold to the original owners and what was decided was to keep it for future use or to dispose of it on commercial basis through an open sale. Thus for all intents and purposes, PBC reviewed its earlier decision and that decision cannot be relied upon by the petitioners in asserting that PBC cannot go back upon the decision to sell the land in dispute to the original owners and must be held to their promise.
7. Secondly , the only provision which deals with such a contingency is rule 14 or the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, which provides that: "14. (1) Where any land has been acquired for any Department of the Governmen t or a local authority for a public purpose and it is proposed to abandon the same, it shall be handed over to the Collector who shall be responsible for the disposal of the same in accordance with the order of Government.
(2) The disposal of land under sub-rule (1) shall be made by Government in its discretion, and its possession restored to the persons from whom it was acquired or to their heirs as under:--
(i) Free of cost to the original owners or their heirs, if compensation for the acquisition of land has not been paid.
(ii) On refunding the amount paid as compensation less than 15 percent granted for compulsory acquisition, if the original landowners or their heirs have already received cash compensation in respect of their land. The price may be lowered, if necessary , on account of deterioration, or enhanced in the rare case of land having been improved by the use to which Government has put it.
(3) Where the original land-owners or their heirs were provided ultimate land in lieu of their acquired land such land shall not be restored to them, but shall be utilized or disposal of by the Board of Revenue in accordance with the policy of the Government regarding disposal and alienation of lands."
8. It is not in dispute that the land was acquired by the Government of the Punjab on behalf of PBC. Rule 14 above provides that in case the public purpose for which the land was acquired is propo sed to be abandoned, the land shall be handed over to the Collector who shall be responsible for the disposal of the same in accordance with the orders of the Government. Thereafter the Government shall dispose of the land in terms of rule 14. No such steps were taken by PBC and the land was never handed over to the Collector for disposal and it goes without saying that there are no orders of the Government of Punjab with regard to the disposal of the land in question.
9. Moreover , PBC in its reply has referred to the letter dated 7.8.2001 which is addressed to the Director General PBC Islamabad from the Ministry of Information and Media Development, Governm ent of Pakistan and conveys the approval of the President for the execution of PBC's development project for broadcasting installation at the site which was acquired originally for setting up a receiving center , Multan.
Another letter dated 12.5.201 1 which too has been addressed by the Director Engineering PBC has been recorded to by the counsel for PBC which addressed the issue in the following manner: "5. It may be mentioned awl non-functional Receiving Centres at the following sites which have been utilized or reserved for the future expansion of PBC.
I. Receiving Centre Lehtrar Road Islamabad. A new Pakistan Broadcasting Academy and IT Centre is being established at the . site.
II. Receiving Centre Pipri Karachi. This site has been reserved for installation of High Power transmitters for digital broadcasting in future.
III. Receiving Centre Lar Multan. This site has been reserved for the establishment of second channel of PBC Multan with installation of a 100 KW MW transmitter .
IV. Receiving Centre Lahore, 100 KW MW transmitter for NBS service has been installed and is in operation since 2006.
V. Receiving Centre Sibi Road Quetta. 100 KW MW transmitter for NBS service has been installed and is in operation since 2005.
6. The above mentioned projects are part of the future planning/ expansion of PBC. All the aspects of every project is studied in detail and inputs from the concerned quarters is incorporated in the development plan. Due to financial constraints funds for development projects have been curtailed by the Finance Division. The PC-J's will be prepared/submitted to the Competent Forum for approval at appropriate time when the financial crunch is over ."
10. Thus, it is evident from a reading of the extract reproduced above that PBC does not intend to and abandon the project and to return the land to the Government for its disposal. In fact, the different sites including the site in question has been earmarked for utilizati on for the future expansion of PBC. By its own showing PBC's stance is that it has not abandoned the public purpose for which the land was acquired and intends to put the land to use for a different project merely . In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court or Pakistan passed in a C.P. No.1669 of 2017 it has clearly been held that the land once acquired vests in the Government and could not be given back to the previous owners even if the purpose is abandoned under any circumstances. It may be put to a different purpose with the only rider that the purpose for which it has subsequently put should also be a public purpose in all its manifestations.
11. In view of the above, this petition is without merit and is dismissed . However , PBC is directed to make a clear decision within a period of one year from the receipt of the order of this Court regarding the utilization of the acquired land in dispute for a public purpose for which it is proposed to be used. In cease there is no such public purpose. in the estimation of the Board of PBC, it shall make a decision regarding the disposal of land in terms of rule 14 of the Rules, 1983.