In this Constitutional petition Notification dated 5-5-1987 and order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar dated 28-6-1988 have been assailed.
2. The brief facts of this case are that Abdur Rashid respondent No.4 moved a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar that he had installed wheat grinding and rice husking machines in Square No.65/9 fields Nos. 7 and 14 situate in village Shera Chittra which is at a distance of about three Acres from the main road. He wanted a passage through Square No.65/9, fields Nos. 14 and 15 and Square No.65/13 fields Nos.Ll and 12 located in village Muhammadpur belonging to the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner did not find favour with the application of Abdul Rashid as the land was not being acquired for any public purpose and dismissed the application on 12-8-1986. Abdul Rashid lodged an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, who set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner Bahawalnagar on 21-1- 1987 and granted permission to apply to the Deputy Commissioner to acquire the said land.
3. Abdur Rashid moved a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar on 7-2-1987 who dismissed his application on 5-7-1987. Abdur Rashid again lodged an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur and he set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the case. In the meantime, the new Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar had taken over, who forwarded the application to the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner drafted a notice under section 4 of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1894 and sent it to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. It was published in the official Gazette on 5-5-1987 and the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar ordered on 28-6-1988 that the Notification has rightly been published. The same order has been assailed in this writ petition.
4. At the very outset, it has been contended that under the Land Acquisition Act or the Rules framed there under, the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division was not competent to hear the appeal. The learned counsel for Abdul Rashid respondent, Mr. M. Akhtar Shabbir, Advocate has scrupulously conceded that there is no provision in the statute or in the rules that the Additional Commissioner can hear an appeal. When the appeal did not lie to the Additional Commissioner, his order and the subsequent orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner fall to the ground.
5. It may also be noted that under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land is acquired for the public purpose. Abdur Rashid has installed small wheat grinding and rice husking machines at his premises. Rice husking is a seasonal affair and a few people go to get the wheat grinded, if the need arises. Abdur Rashid has installed his private machines and it can by no stretch of imagination, be termed for public purpose. In Raja Muhammad Amir and 14 others v. Province of the Punjab and 2 others PLD 1983 Lah. 355, public purpose was defined to mean a purpose furthering general interests of community as opposed to the particular interest of individual and was to be construed according to the spirit of time in which particular legislation was enacted. In Dr. Muhammad Nasim Javed v. Lahore Cantonment Housing Society Ltd. Through the Secretary Fortress Stadium Lahore Cantonment and 2 others PLD 1983 Lah. 552, the same definition of public purpose was repeated. In I Muhammad Akbar through Legal Representatives and 7 others v. The Commissioner Rawalpindi Division and 2 others PLD 1976 Lah. 747, it was held that the land of the people could be acquired by State for public purpose only and the Act did not envisage taking of land of one to be given to other.
6. It is pertinent to note that Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 have been framed which were enforced on 22nd February, 1983. In Rule 2 of Para (iii) of the said Rules, acquiring agency means the department, the local authority or the company for which land is being acquired under the Act.
In the instant case, the land is not being acquired by the department or a local authority nor by a Company and Abdur Rashid does not fall within the definition of acquiring agency.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar has acted under an erroneous order of the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division who has displayed a colourable exercise of his power under the direction of his superior. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited Mullah Ghulam Ali and 3 others v. The' Commissioner of Karachi and 3 others PLD 1983 Kar. 602 in which land was acquired for public purpose for the construction of hotel for Scheme No.3 Landhi Industrial Area and proper notification was issued. I, therefore, quash Notification dated 5-5-1987 and the impugned order of the Deputy I Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, dated 28-6-1988 being illegal and based on an erroneous order. The writ petition is accepted with costs.