Pakistan Case Law← Search
1999 CLC 776

Malik SALAH UD DIN And 6 Others vs COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION,

Citation1999 CLC 776
CourtPeshawar High Court
Judge(s)Qazi Muhammad Farooq, Khalida Rachid
ResultPetition allowed

MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, J.--- The facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution briefly stated are; that a piece of land bearing Khasra No.2919/T measuring 1 Kanal, 1 Maria located in Mohallah Gulab Khana, Peshawar City, originally owned by one Mst. Zojan. Widow of Noor Muhammad Khan, was sought to be acquired for the purpose of constructing a building for Girls Primary School. The case was taken up with the Provincial Government for the provision of funds. An amount of Rs.6,30,600 was sanctioned and placed at the disposal of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar vide Letter No.2603, dated 25-3-1990.

2. The Education Department accordingly moved the Land Acquisition Collector for initiating proceedings in respect of the above land. In pursuance thereof Notification No.497-562/CLA, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 5-8- 1990. However, the proceedings did not advance further and in April, 1993 the owner sold the land in question to the present petitioners on the basis of the registered sale--deeds, dated 6-4-1993, 13- 4-1993 and 22-4-1993 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,275,000. However, after lapse of 3 years the proceedings were followed up by Notification No.9240 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 15-8-1993.

3. Aggrieved by the said belated proceedings the petitioners sought indulgence of this Court by filing Writ Petition No.867 of 1993. The said petition was, however, withdrawn later on by the petitioners for they wanted to pursue the case before the Land Acquisition Collector for making a prayer for the fresh assessm ent at the current market value of the land, considering the escalated price of the ]and with an efflux of time. The petitioners accordingly approached the Collector who vide his Letter No.289-94/CLA, dated 21-2-1995 asked the Education Officer for the remittance of the entire sale amount of Rs.1,311,332.20, a reassessed cost of the land as per registered sale-deeds.

The District Education Officer, in turn addressed a memo., dated 13-3-1995 to the Secretary, Education Department. N.-W.F.P., Peshawar for arranging the funds for the acquisition of the land in question. The matter, however, was finally referred to the Competent Authority i.e., Chief Minister Secretariat through Letter No.298-99/CLA594/P, dated 25-6-1996 for stressing upon the concerned department (Director Primary Education N.-W.F.P.) to arrange requisite amount. It was also desired in the said letter that in case the land was not required or funds were not available the acquisition proceedings may be allowed to be dropped under section 48 of the Act. Respondent No. l (Land Acquisition Collector) in his comments, admitting almost all the contentions of the writ petitioners, submitted that proceedings could not be concluded due to failure of the concerned department to make available the amount of compensation for the land under acquisition.

4. Sardar Akhtar Ali, Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1990 could not be finalised till 1998, therefore, acquisition proceedings under Notification of sections 4 and 6 of the Act virtually appeared to have been dropped and ceased to be operative and stood divested of any legal effect. The learned counsel claimed that in purchasing the land, through registered sale-deeds, the petitioners had to incur additional expenses of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) towards stamp papers, registration fee, Union Council tax etc. An amount of Rs.2,500 was also paid as commission to the property dealer and an amount of Rs.1,50,000 was spent on the construction of the boundary wall, gate etc. It was emphasised that compensation fixed in the year 1990 was inadequate, in comparison with current market value, as prices of the land have escalated manifold since then.

5. Mr. Ejaz Ahmed, learned Additional Advocate-General, has not really controverted the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. However, the representative of the Director, Primary Education, present in the Court, requested for yet another chance to approach the Government for providing the balance amount.

6. As is apparent from the record that despite assiduous correspondence by the Collector with the acquiring department, the acquisition could not be finalised in more than eight- years. After having issued Notification under section 4 of the Act the acquiring department went into slumber and after a lapse of three years Notification under section 6 of the Act was gazetted on 15-8-1993 and even now the acquiring Agency seems reluctant in finalising the acquisition proceedings,. Through Letter No.CPO(PO.II)/3-2/95-95, dated 30th August, 1995 the Government of N.-W.F.P. Education Department, informed the Director, Primary Education that under current policy the purchase of land for establishment of Primary School was not allowed.

7.Under Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 the Punjab Provincial Government has placed restrictions upon its functionaries that if the proceedings are not taken and finalised within the stipulated period the notification issued under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act shall be deemed to have come to an end. Admittedly no such Rules have been framed in this Province under the Land Acquisition Act. Hence no specific limit is prescribed in which the Acquisition proceedings be taken and finalised. It is well-settled that in such) A circumstances where no time is fixed in the statute, the common sense shall l prevail and the proceedings shall be completed within the reasonable time. As to what should be the reasonable time? We may refer to its appropriate meaning. 8 Ordinarily it means to do a thing in the shortest possible time. As to its dictionary meaning, Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary reasonable is defined as "endowed with reason, rational, acting according to reason agreeable to reason, just, not excessive, nor expensive, moderate". In the Concise Oxford Dictionary reasonable has been defined as; "in accordance with reason, not absurd, within the limits of reasons, not greatly less or more than might be expected".

8. The above definitions suggest, that the things that required to be done should be done within the time that is rational and equitable. In this concession, we may also refer to Craies on Statute Law (page 282, Sixth Edition), who while taking up the subject of "Statutory Power of interference with property must be exercised within the reasonable time", observed that "powers conferred by Act of Parliament must, as a general rule, be exercised within a reasonable time, after notice has been given to the persons whose property will be affected by their exercise, otherwise the notice will be liable to be treated as being no longer effective. Where powers are given to take land compulsorily for the execution of works, the exercise of powers must be bona fide commenced within the time limited for the completion of the work".

9. As observed above that no time is limited for the completion of acquisition proceedings in the Act itself and in the absence of N.-W.F. P. Land Acquisition Rules, the Provincial Government cannot be allowed to exercise unfettered powers to proceed with acquisition proceedings with no time limit. In almost similar situation Lahore High Court in case of Nazrul Hussain v. The Collector, Lahore District and others PLD 1990 Lah. 472 held that "if statute has not fixed any specified period for the purpose of particular time, it must be performed within reasonable time". Relying upon this Authority Lahore High Court, once again, in subsequent case of Qudratullah and others v.

Government of Pakistan and others 1992 CLC 680, while making reference to the aforesaid instruction contained in the Memo., dated 15-6-1968 declared Notification issued under section 6 of the Act as nullity in the eye of law for having issued a decade later after Notification under section 4 of the Act without adhering to the requirement of section 5 of the Act. Similar question was taken and dealt with by Karachi High Court in case of Noor-ud-Din and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 1997 CLC 1971. Deprecating and expressing apathy over the dealings of Public Officials with the rights of the citizens involving valuable property the Honourable Judges of Sindh High Court declared the possession of the defendant to be of a trespasser as no compensation was awarded and paid to the plaintiff with in a suitable time after the issuance of Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

10. It may also be reminded that the Government of West Pakistan Revenue Department issued instructions vide Memo. No.2364-68/1533-LA(IV)17/06/68, where by all the Divisional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have been directed to ensure that if no action is taken by the acquiring department or agency within one year of the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act, it should be withdrawn. The said instructions having not been altered amended and withdrawn are still-in the field and have the force of existing law in N.-W.F.P. After the dissolution of West Pakistan.

11. We are dumbfounded to note that acquisition proceedings in the instant case were initiated in 1990 and even after eight years later the Education Department is still in the process of making arrangements for the availability of funds. It will be unfair to the petitioner to keep them in suspense and deprive them from exercising their legitimate right over the property of which the value is enhancing constantly over the years. Even otherwise imposing unreasonable restriction on the petitioners to acquire, hold and dispose of E property is against the principle enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

12. In view of all what has been discussed above we feel justified to allow this petition. Consequently we quash the impugned notifications and all the F subsequent proceedings taken thereunder.

However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search