SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to examine the following questions arising in the case:-- "(a) Whether the abandonment or failure of the purpose for which a property is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it should not be returned to the original owner?"
(b) Whether the acquisitioning authority can utilize such property for another public purpose?
(c) Whether in case the purpose for different use is wholly or partly self-enrichment of the acquiring authority at the cost of the original owner, will it be public purpose?
(d) Whether in view of the explanation that the change of purpose took place after a long time since acquisition, therefore, the petitioner could not have filed a writ petition earlier, cannot now be accepted; and thus whether the petitioner's Constitution petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of laches?"
2. By a notification dated 29th of September, 1961 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, an area measuring 2.17 acres was intended to be acquired at the expense of Town Committee, Bhakkar (respondent No, 3) for a public purpose, namely, "the construction of Town Hall, Public Library and Recreation Park". The area to be acquired included land measuring 17 Canals 8 Marla's allotted to the father of the appellant under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The appellant as attorney of his father objected to they acquisition of land and the compensation proposed to be paid to him but ultimately the acquisition was finalized by an Award by taking possession of the property and by payment of the compensation in 1963. As regards the state of the property at the time of its acquisition, it has been stated in fair detail as hereunder in the Award made by the Collector:-- ' On the Eastern side there are two separate Kacha-pacca structure which are being used as Lorry Stand by the New Khan Transport, etc. And they are paying some rent to Nazar Abbas. The perusal of record and the statements recorded reveal that the land originally belonged to non-Muslim Evacuees and mostly remained in the possession of Town Committee from the year 1956 to 1960 and was subsequently permanently allotted to S. Mustafa Hussain by the A.R.C. (L), Bhakkar on 13- 3-1960. The Secretary, Town Committee, Bhakkar stated that the Bus Stand and Addas were constructed by the New Khan Transport after the issue of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i,e, 29-9-1961. He produced a copy of Resolution No,18 dated 28-9-1961 passed by the Town Committee whereby the application of Khan Amir Abdullah Khan owner of the New Khan Transport for the construction was rejected. It is adequately proved that these constructions took place after the issue of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore is not entitled to any compensation on this account they can remove the structure thereof.
' On the Eastern side there is a Kacha building in which small industry is installed by one Muhammad Sharif son of Akbar Ali, caste Rajput, resident of Bhakkar. He stated that he constructed it in 1952. He produced the attested copies of the orders of the D.R.C./D.R.O., Miariwali allowing him to occupy the land with distinct condition that "No compensation or adjustment shall be permissible on this account". In view of this observation no award on this account can be given to Muhammad Sharif unless he establishes his right within time.
' The Secretary, Town Committee, Bhakkar stated that the construction of the Building was carried by someone and is disputed. Mr. Abdul Hague Overseer, P.W.D. B&R, Bhakkar, assessed the value of structure to Rs,2,250. The Town Committee have to deposit this amount, which will remain in deposit as disputed. Mr. Muhammad Sharif is directed to seek remedy in the competent Court of law for establishing his right, failing which the amount should be refunded to Town Committee.
' The Secretary, ,Town Committee stated that another but on the Western side was constructed by the P.W.D., as the land remained in their occupation before the Town Committee. The Public Works Department, can remove its structure."
3.In the year 1980, the appellant filed a Constitution Petition (Writ Petition No,11068 of 1980) in which he challenged the acquisition of his land and the diversion of the public purpose for which his land was professedly acquired. That petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6-4-1982. In July, 1982, he filed another Constitution Petition (Writ Petition No,2577 of 1982) which is now the subject- matter of consideration. The appellant sought the following reliefs in that Constitution petition:-- "It is requested that this honorable Court may kindly declare that:--
(a) That Notification dated 29-9-61 was got prepared by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 not in the interest of the public purpose but to harm and damage the interest of the petitioner in personal grudge and mala fide intention;
(b) as the respondents Nos.1 to 3, failed to utilise the disputed. Land in accordance with notification hence to use it for any other purposes (specified in the notification) is illegal, unlawful and have no legal effects, because the land acquired under the law cannot be used for any other purpose;
(c) as the purpose for which the land was acquired i,e, construction of Park, Library and Town Hall, have been constructed by the Municipal Committee on some other land, the acquisition of the petitioner land cannot be turned for any other commercial purpose. So the respondents be directed to deliver the possession and return the land in the name of the petitioner and his father from which that was acquired;
(d) the manse profits about 3 lacs Rupees so far collected as rent from the occupants of the land acquired, be given to the petitioner because he is entitled and was taking rent from the occupier before the acquisition, legally;
(e) or any other relief for which the petitioner is entitled may kindly be given by this honorable Court.
' In these circumstances it is humbly prayed that the Notification, Award, and acquisition of the land referred above by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the manner stated above, may kindly be declared as illegal, mala fide, without jurisdiction and void and the land stated above may kindly be ordered to be derequisitioned and restored to the petitioner. Costs of this petition may graciously be awarded to the petitioner.
' It is further prayed that all the respondents may kindly be restrained from constructing market or Paccar shops on the land in dispute and status quo may be maintained till the final disposal of this petition."
' The contention or the grounds taken in the Constitution petition were that the land acquired was not after acquisition used for the purpose for which it was acquired, that the use to which it was proposed to be put was not such for which the land could have been acquired and the purposes for which the land had been acquired had already been served elsewhere and there is no subsisting need on that account. This petition was contested and on facts the following statement was made by the respondent in the written statement:-- "Answer to the Para. No,4 is that the plot was acquired for the public purpose and Municipal Committee is developing the same for the furtherance of the public purpose under a prepared scheme, it is further incorrect that the acquisition was mala fide the utilization of the plot is being carried out under the purpose for which it was acquired further, it is incorrect that the other plot of land belonging to Municipal Committee were lying idle.
' Para. No,5.
' It is incorrect, the land acquired is under continuous utilization of Municipal. Committee and the Municipal Committee has been developing the plot on the lines for it was acquired within the limits of its financial resources, it may be mentioned that a Resolution for the construction of a Town Hall and a Library has since been passed and construction will be carried out as and when the financial resources allow."
' In the affidavit accompanying the written statement, the following explanation is given:-- 'That there were some Katcha built shops on the road side of the plot and were in dilapidated condition in order to improve them. The Municipal Committee, converted some of those into Pacca ones. However, after the issuance of status quo order dated 31-7-1982, the Municipal Committee, Bhakkar put the whole matter in abeyance, and is suffering a loss of income. There is already built a Saddar Octopi office on spot. The Town Hall, Library and Recreation Park as proposed are being delayed due to paucity of funds, but the scheme has never been dropped and the Municipal Committee undertakes to do the needful in near future."
4. In support of the facts stated by the respondent the decision of the Municipal Committee, Bhakkar dated 27-12-1982 and 23-6-1983 along with the plan of the construction of rooms and Halls of the Office of Municipal Committee, Bhakkar and the Municipal Library were put in and also the completion certificate of the Library and the boundary wall placed on record. The learned Judge in the High Court held that in so far as the acquisition completed in 1963 was being challenged, the petition suffered from extreme lathes. The learned Judge did not examine the merits of the contention. The petition was dismissed.
5. An Intra-Court Appeal was filed against this judgment and the Appeal Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision of the learned Judge in Chamber holding that the appellant had no locus standi, and that he was guilty of laches. On merits it was held that in view of the decision in the case Secretary of State v. Amulya Charan Banerjee and others (AIR 1927 Cal. 874), the land acquired for one purpose could be used for another. On these findings the appeal too was dismissed.
6. Malik Ghulam Safdar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the cause of action to the appellant arose in 1980 when actually the diversion of the public purpose took place and not earlier, and there was no question of laches involved because the Constitution Petition was filed forthwith and the matter was at no stage given up. In support of the contention that such a diversion of public purpose could not take place the learned compel has relied on the cases of Muhammad Aslam Khan etc. v. Province of Punjab etc. (PLD 1979 Lahore 843), Union of India, New Delhi and others v. Nand Kishore and another (AIR 1982 Delhi 462), Gadadhar Ghosh v.
State of West Bengal (AIR 1963 Calcutta 565) and Parshottam Jethalal Soni and others v. Secretary of State and another (AIR 1938 Bombay 148).
7. Mr. M. Hanif Bhatti, Advocate, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent on the other hand has contended on facts that there has been no diversion of public purpose, that only delay has taken place in accomplishing the purpose for which the land was acquired and that too was on account of shortage of funds. However, the matter was taken up in hand and the Library has been constructed and the recreation park is also proposed to be constructed over the land. The Office and Halls of the Municipal Committee have also been constructed. As regards the shops it was stated that the Kacha Pacca construction already existed on the land at the time of acquisition and subsequently added by encroachers and these were converted into Pacca and let out as a part of the integrated scheme for which the land had been acquired. Hence, there was no cause of action available at-all to the appellant to either challenge, the acquisition which was completed in 1963 or to invoke the ground of the diversion of the public purpose or non-utilization of the property.
8. The facts stated above make it clear that the case of the appellant that public library had been constructed elsewhere and also the Recreation Park and the Town Committee Hall remained established. Temporary utilization of the premises till permanent premises are constructed or made available would not itself amount to diversion of the public purpose, nor the delay in utilizing the property for the purpose. On the other hand, the facts show that there was no abandonment or failure of the purpose for which land was acquired. The achievement of the purpose for which land was acquired was delayed but it has been partly achieved and is in process of accomplishment in phases.
9. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act shows that on acquisition being completed the property vests in the Government free from all encumbrances.
' After such vesting the land acquired could be put to any use which the law authorizes and is relatable to public purpose or to statutory duties. In the case of Union of India, New Delhi and others Nand Kishore and another and Secretary of State v. Amulya Charan Banerjee and others such use has been held to be permissible. The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the appellant all relate to the stage where the proceedings for acquisition had not been completed, the land had not vested in the acquiring authority and before that the diversion of the public purpose had taken place. There the Court intervened to say that the diversion of the purpose demanded that the notification under section 4 should issue de novo giving out the exact public purpose so that objections could be filed. This is true of the cases of Muhammad Aslam Khan etc. v. Province of Punjab, etc., Gadadhar Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and Parshottam Jethalal Soni and others v.
Secretary of State and another.
10. In the case before us there is no diversion of the public purpose because the Town Hall and the Municipal Committee Offices have been constructed on the land as also the Public Library. The Recreation Park only is awaiting completion.
11. There is an express provision in the Land Acquisition Act, section 43-A, whereby the land acquired for the purpose of a company has been made not transferable without the permission of the Provincial Government. No such provision is made in respect of the acquisitions by the Government or the Local Authority, but in respect of the Government Departments, there are standing instructions to that effect in Para. 493 of the Punjab Land Administration and Management Manual. However, the provisions thereof are not attracted to this case as there has been neither abandonment nor failure of the purpose for which the property was acquired. After the acquisition had been completed the property acquired can be put to other pubic use or as required by the statutory provision governing the local authority. As no change of purpose has been proved or unjust enrichment had taken place the question 'c' and d' posed in the leave granting order, do not arise for adjudication in the case. Nothing has been brought on the record to either establish the mala fide of the acquisition or the change in the purpose for which the acquisition had been made.
12. The petition filed in 1982 for claiming the reliefs which were claimed was clearly incompetent for more than one reason and was rightly dismissed. We find no merit in the case and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.