CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- Briefly, the facts of case are that petitioner owned land measuring 9 kanals, 8 merles in village Khokharke Suburb of Gujranwala. Respondent No. 2 issued notification for Acquisition of and in question for respondent No. 4 on 23.10.1982; Notification was published on 14.11.1984. Subsequently respondent No. 2 issued notification u/S. 17(4) of Land. Acquisition Act, 1894 which was published in the gazette Notification 10.3.1987% Thereafter respondent No. 3 passed the order on 25.4.1987 for the delivery of possession to respondent No. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed this writ petition.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that the Land Acquisition Act is designed to deprive the citizens from their valuable rights in property through somewhat coercive measures by the State exercising 'authority under, statute, therefore, provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are to .Be construed strictly. In support of his contention he relied upon Province' of Punjab vs. Mufti Muhammad lshaque and Others (PLD 1984 Leh. 261); that notification WS. 4 was prepared on 23,10.1982 and was published in the official Gazette on 14.11.1984, statutory period of one year under the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 expires of on 15.11.1985, however, no further progress was made till 26.1.1987 when the Commissioner issued another notification u/S. 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Directing that she provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply by the acquisition of land in. Question.
He urged that respondents failed to take further steps within the prescribed time i.e. One year as is envisaged -by rule 7 of the Punjab. Land, Acquisition Rules, 1983, therefore, proceedings shall be deemed to have come to an end; he relied upon the following Judgments.:- Govt: of Pakistan Sec. Works Communication Physical Planning's case (1996 SCMR 968).
Nazar-ul-Hassan's case (P.L.D. 1990 Lah 472).
Qadrat Ullah and 4 others' case (1992 CLC 680)
Syed Mehmood Alam and others' case (1989 CLC 1801 He further submits that Full Bench of this Court has laid down principle that second notification u/s. 5 of the aforesaid Act commencing from the date of publication is 14 months but the respondents in the present case did not take action under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act within reasonable time. In this behalf he relied upon Allah Ditta's case (PLD 1997 Leh. 499) He further submits that rule 7 was declared ultra vires by the Full Bench of this Court in Allah Ditta's case supra but Govt. Failed to frame the Rule, therefore, action of respondent is without lawful authority; that action of respondents is mala fide as is evident that respondents prepared the notification u/S. 4 on 23-10.1982 which was published in Gazette notification on 14.11.1984 and thereafter notification was issued by the Commissioner u/S. 17(4) on 26.1.1987 which was Published on 10.3.1987 and thereafter A.G. Passed the order on 25.4.1987 for the... Delivery of the possession of the land in question to respondent No. 4; that petitioner requested respondent No. 4 to acquire the land of petitioner adjadent to the vicinity. The respondents accepted the same subject to the condition that the petitioner should accept the price of the year 1984; that the efflux of time, the purpose of acquiring the land in question has come to an end; that respondent No. 4 had sufficient land in their possession and ownership to comply the project for which the land in question was acquired; that petitioner has reserved land in question ,for the of his residential house open in the land in question; that Telephone Exchange should not be constructed in the very thickly populated area .
3. The learned counsel for respondents submits that notification WS. 4 (1) 'of the Land Acquisition Act published on 14.11.1984; thereafter the action was not taken by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as the estimate price was made during the interregnum period, till the notification was issued. u/S. 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act on 26.1.1987; that action of respondents is valid in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he relied upon:- A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1593 "State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Krishna Prased Sharma"
Rati Lal vs. State of Gujrat (AIR ,1970 SC 984).
He further submits that Rules 7 and 8 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1983 was declared ultra vires to the parent Act and was struck down by the Full Bench of this Court. He relied upon the following judgment:- Allah Ditta and others' case (PLD 1997 Lah. 499) He further urged that it is by virtue of Section 17(4) is only subjective satisfaction of Commissioner and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own opinion for that of Commissioner; that it is executive act of Commissioner which is sole Judge of existence of urgency. He relied upon Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed Khan's case (PLD 1983 Lah.
178); Abdul Rahim's case (1983 CLC 1478); Sardar and others' case (1997 CLC 812); that originally respondent No. 4 is converted into Corporation which is controlled by ,the Govt. Out of its public revenue; therefore, provisions of Part VIII of the Act are not applicable to this. He relied upon PLD 1983 Lah. 355; that respondents had taken possession of the land in question on 25.4.1987, the respondents had deposited the estimated costs Rs. 9,90,000/- to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 13.10.1986; thereafter under 'the direction of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respondent No. 4 had deposited Rs. 26,600.1- to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 13.4.1'987; he summed up his arguments that respondent No. 4 should not be penalized by the in-action of respondents Nos. 1 to 3; that respondent No. 4 still needed the land in question by public purpose for construction of Telephone Exchange.
4. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Rules; and 8 of" the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 were struck down by this Court in Allah -Ditto's case supra (PLD 1997 Late 499). The learned counsel for petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court (1996 SCMR 968) Govt. Of Pakistan 's case supra.
It is pertinent to mention here that leave was refused by the Hon.Ble Supreme Court in this case and case was decided on 9.1.1995 whereas the Full Bench of this Court declared the Rules 7 and 8 ultra vires of the parent Act in Allah Ditta's case supra on 9.11.1996. In this view of the matter the judgments relied upon by the petitioners' counsel are distinguished on facts and law, It is also pertinent to mention here that the judgment of ,Hon'ble Supreme Court was not placed before learned-Full Bench. The Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of (Allah Ditta) struck down Rules 7 and 8 of the Punjab Acquisition Rules, 1983 ultra vires of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and declared, as being of no legal effect leaving the competent legislature to make suitable amendment by fresh legislation. It is also admitted fact that competent authority, has not made any amendment in the parent Act and the aforesaid Rules. Now the only question for determination is that in the absence of aforesaid Rules, no time limit is prescribed in the parent At itself whether the respondent's can be allowed to exercise unfettered powers or not to proceed with acquisition proceedings with no time limit or respondents have to exercise powers within the reasonable time. The Full Bench of this Court has considered this aspect of the case in pare .49 and observed as under:- "to do a thing as,soon as possible" means to do it, within a reasonable time with an understanding to to it within the shortest possible time."
The Full Bench of this Court in aforesaid case of Allah Ditta in para 45 interpreted the word at any time be substituted by the word. Within reasonable time. The word reasonable means:-- "Fair, proper, just, suitable under the circumstances as defined in Black Law Dictionary 6th Edition".
I may also be observed that meaning of the word -reasonable' is defined in Ballentines Law Dictionary. 3rd Edition which is as under:-- "reasonable means not extreme. Not arbitrary capricious, or confiscatory"
(Public Service Commission VS Haverneyer 296 US 506, 80 L Ed. 357 = 36 S Ct. 360).
What is reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances. It is an elastic term which is of uncertain value in a definition "Sussex Land and Live Stock Co. Vs. Midwest Refining Co. (CA 8 Wad 29.4 F 597, 34 AIR 249;.257).
It is pertinent to mention here that competent authority framed the Rules under the name and style Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 u/S. 55 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which came into force on 22.2.1983. It may also be remembered that Govt. Of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Department issued instructions vide memo: No. 2364-68/1533-LA (4) 17/6-68 whereby all the Divisional Commissioner and D.C. Have been directed to ensure that if no action is taken by the acquiring department or agency with is one year of the issuance of the notification u/S. 4 of the Act, it should.
Be withdrawn. The aforesaid instructions were not amended by the competent authority through the aforesaid Rules.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion the acquisition proceedings are confiscatory in nature and it should be construed strictly as the owner of the land deprived compulsorily from his own land. The compensation must be determined as early, as possible in terms of the ,Acquisition Act itself and,rules framed there under In the present ease notification for acquisition of land in question was issued on 23.10.1982 which was published on 14.11.1984 and notification u/S. 17(4) of Land Acquisition Art was issued by the Commissioner on 261,1987 which 'was. Published in the Gazette notification on 10.3.1987. In case the aforesaid dates are put in juxtaposition, then the question emerges that whether the action of respondents from 14.11.1984 'to 10.3.1987 which comes to two and half years fails under the terms reasonable or not? Two and half years does not fall within the reasonable time in view of the aforesaid discussion coupled with the fact that nobody should be penalized by the in-action of public functionaries, in arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by P.L.D. 1994 Lah. 3, deprecating and expressing apathy over the dealings of public officials with the rights of the citizens involving valuable property, the Hon'ble Judges of Sindh High Court in Noor-ud-Din's case (1997 CLC 1971), declared the possession of the respondents to be tress-passer, as no compensation was awarded and paid to the petitioner within reasonable time after issuance of notifications uiss.
4. And 6 of the Act.