The facts forming the background of this Constitutional petition filed on behalf of the landowners are that the land belonging to them was acquired on 20-2-1965 vide Notification issued on 20-2- 1965. The total land so acquired was 1932 Kanals and 15 Marlas. This notification was further amended vide Notification dated 9-3-1965. This aforementioned acquisition was challenged by the landowners through writ petition being W.P. No,367 of 1965 which was decided on 25-10-1984. As a result of the decision made in the said writ petition, it was held that whatever rights the petitioners had in the land they should have recourse to an appropriate authority under the Land Acquisition Act for the redress of their grievance/compensation. The award in respect of the land in question was announced on 24-3-1986. The landowners not being satisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector made an application to him for making a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation as announced in the award. The learned Senior Civil Judge after recording evidence and hearing the parties on the reference submitted to him by the Land Acquisition Collector vide his judgment and decree dated 20-1-1992 enhanced the compensation awarded to the landowners at the rate of Rs,5,000 per Kanal as against the compensation originally fixed by him plus 15% compulsory land acquisition charges and 8% interest with effect from 16-2-1965 till the final payment was made.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the enhancement as affected in the award originally announced, the Land Acquisition Collector preferred a Regular First Appeal in the High Court being Regular First Appeal No,4 of 1992. Likewise, the landowners also feeling themselves aggrieved of the enhancement as made by the learned Senior Civil Judge also filed a Regular First Appeal in the High Court being Regular First Appeal No,27 of 1992. Both the Regular First Appeals filed by the landowners as also by the Land Acquisition Collector are still pending in this Court awaiting the decision. In the meantime, the petitioners came to know through a news item appearing in the press that the Army Welfare Trust had taken over the Wah Cement Works. On coming to know of this fact of the Army Welfare Trust having taken over the Wah Cement Works, the petitioners instituted the present Constitutional petition.
3. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate, appearing in support of the instant Constitutional petition has raised the following contentions:--
(i) that at the time of acquisition of the petitioners' land the only purpose stated in the notification was to meet the requirement of cement in the country. However, after the establishment of several other cement factories in the country, the very rationale for which the Wah Cement Works was established and the petitioners' land acquired seized to be relevant and it was for this reason that the petitioners maintained that the Wah Cement Works, as such, having been abandoned the land acquired therefor and belonging to the petitioners may be released in their favour under Rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983;
(ii) that the sale of the petitioners' land which was acquired for Wah Cement Works through the process of privatization was against the interest of the petitioners and they had a right to question the same.
(iii) that the policy of privatization which has been resorted to by the Government is out of the ambit of the Constitution.
4. Mr. M.S. Baqir, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Privatization Commission has disputed the correctness of the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, by contending that the Privatization Commission before putting the Wah Cement Works to sale had issued proper advertisement in the press to the effect that the State Cement Corporation in its meeting held on 8-7-1991 empowered the Privatization Commission to take all necessary steps for the privatization of Wah Cement Works. The resolution passed by the State Cement Corporation is R.1/3 and forms part of the record of this Court. Pursuant to the privatization policy of the Government of Pakistan, Privatization Commission through an advertisement appearing in the newspaper invited open bids for 80% shares i,e, 128,078,980 shares of the face value of Rs,10 each from the general public for the outright sale of State enterprises called the Wah Cement Works.
Among others, Employees Management Group of Wah Cement Works participated in the bidding of Wah Cement Works held on 10-1-1996. The Employees Management Group was not the highest bidder but under an agreement known as APSEWAC Agreement dated 15-10-1991 (Annexure R/4) the Employees Management Group was given an opportunity to match the highest bid. Letter of intent dated 11-1-1996 was issued in favour of the Employees Management Group. The said letter of intent was accepted by the Wah Cement Employees Management Group. Consequent upon sale agreement dated 15-2-1996 (Annexure R.1/5) was executed between the State Cement Corporation of Pakistan through Privatization Commission as a "Seller" and Wah Cement Company Employees Management Group as a "Buyer". The management was handed over to the buyer on 15-2-1996.
The total sale price payable by the buyer was Rs,2,752,097,035. The said amount was paid by the Employees Management Group. In support of his case, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the following authorities:--
(1) Millat Tractors Employees Trust and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary and 6 others (PLD 1992 Lah. 68).
(2) Calicon (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federal Government of Pakistan and others (1996 M LD 705).
5. Before proceeding to determine the legality and the propriety of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, it appears appropriate to briefly summarize the said contentions. These are, as noticed earlier, as follows:--
(i) that the declared object for the acquisition of the petitioner's land was shortage of Cement in the country and that on account of the establishment of several cement factories in the country, the said object had been achieved and the very rationale for the acquisition of petitioners' land was gone;
(ii) that the project known as Wah Cement Works for which the petitioners' land was acquired had since been abandoned. Consequent upon the said abandonment, the petitioners were entitled to the release of their land in their favour under Rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983;
(iii) that the Privatization of Wah Cement Works and the policy of privatization was ultra-vires the Constitution.
6. So for as the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners/landowners is concerned, it may be pointed out that notwithstanding, the establishment of several cement factories in the country, it cannot be said that the very rationale behind the establishment of Wah Cement Works for which, the petitioners' land was acquired is gone. It is a matter of common knowledge that the establishment of several cement factories in the country, notwithstanding, there is still very acute demand for cement in the country and it is, therefore, not correct to say that because of the establishment of several cement factories in the country, the object for which the petitioners' land had been acquired has since been achieved, thus, warranting the release of the petitioners' land in their favour. Even otherwise, the petitioners are not entitled to wield this argument: The only right which accrued in their favour, consequent upon the acquisition of their land was to ask for compensation. They did not feel satisfied with the compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and accordingly made a petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for making a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The application made by the landowners under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Collector was transmitted by him by way of reference to the Civil Court which after hearing both the parties i,e, the landowners and the Acquiring Authority and after recording evidence enhanced the compensation. The petitioners/landowners still not satisfied with the compensation as enhanced by the Senior Civil Judge, have come up in appeal against the decision of the Civil Court before the High Court. The appeals filed by them as also by the Land Acquisition Collector against the enhancement of compensation by the learned Senior Civil Judge are still pending in the High Court. It shall, thus, be seen that the petitioners/landowners on the one hand feeling themselves aggrieved of the inadequacy of compensation, have filed appeals in this Court for seeking enhancement in the compensation and on the other they are asking for the release of their land from acquisition. Their plea for the purpose is, thus, nothing but a contradiction in terms. They cannot ask for the release of their land from acquisition and at the same time ask for enhancement of compensation for the same land.
7. With a view to examining the plea of the petitioners/landowners for the release of their land pursuant to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, it appears appropriate to examine the said Rule which is reproduced hereunder:-- Rule 14(1) Where any land has been acquired for any Department of the Government 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 orders 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 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 the 15 per cent. 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 landowners or their heirs were provided alternate land in lieu of their acquired land, such land shall not be restored to them, but shall be utilized or disposed of by the Board of Revenue in accordance with policy of the Government regarding disposal and alienation of lands.
8. A bare perusal of Rule 14 reproduced hereinabove would show that the landowners/petitioners' plea based thereon is not such as carries any weight. The condition precedent for the applicability of Rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 is the abandonment of the project for which the land initially was acquired. A perusal of the facts hereinabove discussed would show that there has been no abandonment of the project known as Wah Cement Works as such so as to furnish a legal justification for the release of the acquired land in favour of the petitioner/landowners. The proprietorship of Wah Cement Works was vested in a company in the first instance. It later on came to vest in the Federal Government. The Federal Government through the process of privatization has sold the ownership of the company known as Wah Cement Works in favour of Employees Management Group referred to hereinabove and the Employees Management Group has sold its rights in favour of Army Welfare Trust. What, therefore, has happened is that the ownership/proprietorship of Wah Cement Works has changed hands but the project Wah Cement Works for establishing which the land originally was acquired is still there at the site and is being used for the production of cement even now. This being so, it cannot be said or asserted on the part of the petitioners/landowners that the project Wah Cement Works for which the land was acquired has been abandoned and the land acquired, therefore, may be released in their favour.
As aforesaid, there has been no abandonment of the project as such and there is no question of Rule 14 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 being attracted. There is yet another dimension from which the petitioners/land owners's plea for seeking release of their land may be examined. As has been shown hereinabove, wide publicity was given by the Federal Government/ Privatization Commission before putting the Wah Cement Works to sale. The petitioners/ landowners had the knowledge of the said sale being made by and through the Privatization Commission yet they stood by and neither raised any objection there against nor participated in the bid for the sale of Wah Cement Works. They cannot turn around now and frustrate the sale of Wah Cement Works by filing this petition. They are estopped by their own conduct from doing so.
9. So for as the petitioners/landowners' plea that the privatization of Wall Cement orks was ultra vires the Constitution is concerned, this too is such as does not merit serious consideration. The argument raised by and on behalf of the petitioners/landowners is that without legislative backing, the Federal Government/Privatization Commission could not dispose of Wah Cement Works. The policy of privatization and the question of the property vesting in the Federal Government being disposed if through an executive act without a legislative support, fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and was approved and held to be intra vires the Constitution by this Court in judgment reported as "Canton (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federal Government of Pakistan and others (1996 M LD 705). After discussing the policy of privatization and the sale by the Federal Government through the Privatization Commission, the Court recorded a decision to the following effect:-- "We are, thus, of the view that no specific legislation is necessary for the exercise of executive authority under Article 173(1)(1) (ibid) of our Constitution for the purpose of sale, mortgage or disposal of the property by the Federal/Provincial Government. Of course if an Act of the appropriate legislature holds the field its provisions shall be followed by the executive authority in the matter of sale, mortgage or disposal of the property vested in the Federal Or Provincial Government.
However, existence of an Act of the appropriate legislature is not a prerequisite for the exercise of the executive authority under Art.173(1) of the Constitution."
10. As a natural coolly to the foregoing discussion, the instant Constitutional petition is dismissed in Mine being wholly misconceived and being without any merit.