1. On 12th February, 1979 Notification No, L-1-2/375/M/DRA was issued from the office of the Collector, Gujranwala which was to the effect that the land described in the notification was to be taken over by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Gujranwala, at their own expense A for public purpose.
2. This notification was under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 to all concerned. The Collector acting under the powers vested in him under the aforesaid section authorised the staff to enter and survey the land in the locality and do all other acts required under the aforesaid provision. Khasra numbers required to be acquired were detailed in the notification the petitioners have impugned the aforesaid notification by means of this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. They claim to be the owners of land measuring 23 Kanals comprising Khasra Nos. 884/1/2, 885/2, 8862 and 887, detailed in the notification. It is situated in Village Shahpur Khiali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. This land is required to construct a Bus Stand.
3. This is to avoid congestion of the traffic in the town. It was to divert traffic to bye-pass Gujranwala Town and to pass alongwith Sheikhupura Road.
4. ' After the issuance of the said notification the petitioners referred to some correspondence between the Administrator, Municipal Committee, The Collector, Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. The letter written by the Administrator, Municipal Committee was to the effect that the land was outside the Municipal limits. It was partly constructed. Its price was approximately 9.00 lacs. Another amount of Rs, 15.00 lacs was required for the construction of Bus Stand. The Municipality could not afford such a huge project. The Government of the Punjab was requested to give financial aid, ' Accordingly on 14th September, 1980 a letter was written by the Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner which is Annexure (B) to this petition in which the total expenditure for the entire project was given as Rs, one crore. The Deputy Commissioner also gave his view that perhaps the scheme may not be liked by the public and the student community.
5. ' Thereafter the petitioners gave reference of Writ Petition No, 184 of 1981. This was filed by some transporters. It was against the order of the District Magistrate dated 11th November, 1980. I decided this petition on 24th March, 1981. The impugned order in that was declared to be without lawful authority.
6. ' The petitioner alleged that after the issuance of the impugned notification nothing further happened. One year passed. Notification as such is deemed to have been withdrawn. Reliance in this connection was placed on the instructions contained in Annexures (C) and (C/1). It is further stated that in spite of the instructions, referred to above, a resolution was passed by the Municipal Committee, Gujranwala on 11th April, 1981 which was about the acquisition of land for the construction of Bus Stand and for the issuance of notification under section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act.
7. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that after the impugned notification had been issued no further action was taken for about a year. Therefore, according to the instructions contained in Annexures C and 0/, the notification would be deemed to have been withdrawn. Relying on Memorandum No, 495-70/209-LAII, dated 2nd February, 1970 (Annexure C/1) issued by the Government of West Pakistan Board of Revenue, the subject of which is "Guidelines for the implementation of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Ordinance No, XLIX of 1969", learned counsel argued that the purpose for which the Bus Stand was required had ceased to exist.
8. In support of this he relied on the aforesaid instructions as well as on my judgment in Writ Petition No, 184 of 1981. Reliance was also placed on the case of Messrs East and West Steamship Company v, Pakistan and 2 others.
9. ' Learned counsel submitted that the instructions relied upon by him are not to be taken as instructions simpliciter but they have the statutory force. In support of this he relied on the case of Hamidullah and ahother v. Rai Khurshid Ahmad Khan and 2 others.
10. ' Taking advantage of the instructions, referred to before, some other points were also urged that the land is very fertile as such it is not desirable to take possession of the land ; acquisition of agricultural land is to be avoided.
11. ' Learned counsel also laid stress on the fact that the Municipality had no funds.
12. ' These points 1 don't think need serious consideration because these are mere assertions of facts. 1 have to confine myself to examine whether the impugned notification has been issued by a competent authority with or without lawful authority.
13. ' Learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objections. He submitted that the land is being acquired for public purpose by due process of law. The petitioners as such have no cause of action and locus standi to come to this Court. His next objection was also about the maintainability of the petition because, according to the learned counsel, other adequate remedies are available to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act.
14. ' On merit, it was submitted that the impugned notification was issued at the instance of respondent No,
1. The Bus Stand is being constructed for the public interest. It will help solving the traffic problem.
15. ' Regarding the instructions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was argued that they do not have the statutory force. They are simple guidelines. The action taken is in accordance with law and with lawful authority. In support of this learned counsel cited two cases, i. e.
16. Muhammad Sharif v. The Secretary to Government of the Punjab and 3 others and Sub.
17. Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Shaba Begum and another.1 2 3 4 ' My judgment in Writ Petition No, 184 of 1981 is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition.
18. The impugned order in that petition was in connection with a different matter. Its scope was entirely different. As such that order can be of no help to the petitioners. This petition is to be decided on its own merits.
19. ' I am not concerned with the correspondence referred to above. The question about the availability of the funds and the price of the land are also not to be considered by me. I have only to examine the vires of the notification impugned in this petition. No doubt no further proceedings have been taken after the issuance of the impugned notification but that was due to the status quo order passed by me. It is not denied by the petitioners that the land is required for the public purpose. Their case is that the impugned notification would be deemed to have been withdrawn because of the instructions referred to before as well as my order in the earlier writ petition. These submissions have no force. The land is required in the public interest. The action taken so far does not suffer from any illegality so as to bring it within the ambit of unlawful authority.
20. ' I, therefore, don't think that there is any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
21. ' Parties to bear their own costs. PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 41 PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 516 PLD 1973 SC 497 PLD 1976 SC 435