TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.--- The petitioners have challenged Notification No.3187-91, dated 28- 6-2000 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby land measuring 2 Kanals, 11 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.359 and 636/2 situated in Mauza Babi and 1 Kanal, 9 Marals comprising Khasra No.630/375 situated at Mauza Titara (total land measuring 'four Kanals) has been notified to be acquired for construction of WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Peshawar near Taru Jabba, Tehsil and District Nowshera.
3. Mr. Samiullah Jar: the learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society has, not been formed for general public but it meant for limited class i.e. For the WAPDA Employees only and, 'therefore, land could not be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The proposed acquisition, therefore, would not be for "public purpose".
4. It was also argued that District Collector, Nowshera is not competent to issue Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the impugned Notification has been issued under the directions of Chief Executive PESCO without applying independent mind.
5. On me of Per hand Mr. Mazullah Barkandi, the learned counsel representing the respondents argued that WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society has been registered under Cooperative Societies Act and falls under the definition of Companies as defined under section 3(t) of the Land Acquisition Act and the land acquired for the said Company would fall under the category of "public purpose",
6. While repelling the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners' that the District Collector, Nowshera could not issue Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned counsel representing the respondents argued that the impugned Notification has been issued with lawful authority by a competent person.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. So far as the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society has not been formed for general public and is meant for limited class i.e. For WAPDA Employees only and, therefore, land could not be acquired for the same and the proposed acquisition would not for "public purpose" has no force at all. WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society has been registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Peshawar vide Letter No.4741-46/DRP, dated 29-12-1987 has certified that the said Society has been registered under the, Cooperative Societies Act, therefore, under section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act, the said Society is deemed to be "Company" and land could be acquired for it. In Peoples Housing Society and others v. Collector Lahore and others 1979 CLC 180, it was held that Housing Society registered under Cooperative Societies Act of 1925 is qualified as Company for the purpose of land acquisition.
The argument of the learned counsel that the land purposed to be acquired would not be for the "public purpose" as the Society has been formed for limited class i.e. WAPDA Employees only equally has no force. "Public purpose" is an object in which the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of individuals is directly and vitally concerned. It is a purpose which is in furtherance of the general interest of the community at large as opposed to the particular interest of an individual. Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 defines "public purpose" as under:-- "includes the provision of village-sites in districts in which the (Provincial Government) shall have declared by notification in the official Gazette that it is customary for the Government to make such provision; "
9. The question whether land to be acquired for construction of Housing Colony for WAPDA Employees would fall under the category of "public purpose" or not came up for hearing in Dr. Muhammad Nasim Javed v. Lahore Cantonment Housing Society Ltd. Through the Secretary Fortress Stadium, Lahore Cantt. And 2 others PLD 1983 Lah. 552, the learned Court after discussing various provisions of Land Acquisition Act and judgments in Raja Muhammad and others v.
Province of Punjab and others PLD 1983 Lah. 355, Babu Barya Thakur v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 1203, Hambai Framjee Petil v. Secretary of State for India AIR 1914 PC 20, Jhandu Lal Budh Ram and others v. The State of Punjab and another AIR 1959 Pb. 479, Tej Ram Jag Ram v. Union of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, New Delhi and others AIR 1959 Pb. 478, Radha Raman v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 1954 All. 700, R.L. Arora v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR'
1962 SC 764 and many other judgments held:-- "In view of ratio laid down in the aforementioned cases, the position which emerges is that the acquisition for Cooperative House Building Society may serve a public purpose. It, however, depends upon circumstances of each whether or not such an acquisition is for a public purpose."
Similarly in Pakistan through Ministry of Works, Government of Pakistan, Karachi and another v.
Muhammad A.I and others PLD 1960 SC 60 it was held: -- "Accommodation acquired for the residence of Government servants, therefore, is as much for Government purposes as acquisition for the location of Government offices."
Likewise in Anand Kumar and another v. State of M.P. And others AIR 1963 Madh. Para. 256 it was held:-- "The acquisition of land for enabling M.P. Housing Board to construct houses is clearly for a public purpose. The concept of public purpose is not static. It varies from time to time and according to the circumstances of thought prevailing in the country. It is not possible to define what a public purpose is. But there can be no doubt that when there is acute shortage of houses and accommodation, the provision of house sites for relieving congestion is a public purpose. It may be that the land acquired and the houses constructed thereon may benefit a section of the public.
Nonetheless, the acquisition would be for a public purpose as by the acquisition of the land and construction of houses, the public generally will be benefited. "
"The provision of house sites for Pachamas is a public purpose. The Government is the proper authority for deciding what a public purpose is. When the Government declares a certain purpose to be a public purpose, it must be presumed that the Government is in possession of facts which induce the Government to declare that the purpose is a public purpose."
10. Keeping in view the abovementioned dicta we are clear in our mind that land acquired by WAPDA Cooperative Housing Society for construction of residential Colony would fall under the definition of "public purpose".
11. So far as the other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector, Nowshera is not competent to issue Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the impugned Notification has been issued under the directions of the Chief Executive PESCO without applying independent mind equally has no force.
12. The purpose of the Notification under section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to find out after necessary survey and taking levels, and if necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. The proposal so submitted after such enquiry become the subject-matter of a definite proceedings for acquisition under the Act. Another object of section 4 Notification is to notify interested persons of Government's intention to acquire land.
13. Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P. Vide its Memo. No.2404/Rev.V/LA---273 dated 20-5-1991 authorised the Deputy Commissioner/Collector to verify and ensure that the area proposed to be acquired is not in excess of its genuine requirements. The Commissioner, Peshawar Division was directed to complete the prescribed formalities as envisaged under sections 40, 41 read with section 5-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. No doubt Arbab Munirullah Khan and Noorul Haq, Land Acquisition Officers, Office of the Project Director Grid Station Construction, WAPDA, Rawalpindi stationed at Peshawar were appointed vide Notification dated 30-9-1989 and 8-7-1990 issued by 'Islam Bahadur Khan, Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P. Revenue Department under clause (c) of section 3 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Government of N.W.F.P. To perform functions of the Collector under the aforesaid Act for acquisition of land for WAPDA Employees Housing Society and their allied work within the Peshawar District, but the said powers were subject to the control of the Collector of District Peshawar. Respondent No.6 as per directions contained in the abovementioned letters executed agreement as per provisions of section 41 of the Act with the Government of N.- W.F.P. On 3-3-1992, therefore, the codal formalities as required under the law were fulfilled and the District Collector, Nowshera was competent to issue Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is worth mentioning that adjoining land of Mauza Babi Khushmuqam, Titara and Balu measuring about 4000 Kanals has been acquired for construction of WAPDA Employees Residential Colony, similar Notifications were issued by the 'Land Acquisition Authorities, but no objection was ever raised by the landowners. The present objection, it appears, has been raised only for academic purposes, though the impugned notification shows that the same has been signed by Land Acquisition Collector, WAPDA as well as District Collector, Nowshera, both administratively and judicially, such officers, for all practical purpose were Land Acquisition Collectors under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the said Notification has been issued with lawful authority.
Keeping in view the above discussion we tend to dismiss the writ petition in hand for the reasons, firstly, that WAPDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society has been registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and is deemed to be a Company under section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act, it therefore, can acquire land.
Secondly, the land acquired for establishing residential Colony for the WAPDA Employees falls in the category of "public purpose".
Thirdly, the petitioners have challenged Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been issued to carry on preliminary investigation whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired and to put the landowners on guard that their land is likely to be acquired. It has not created any interest in favour of Government and the landowners would not be divested of their rights merely because Notification under section 4 has been issued.
Fourthly, the landowners under section 5-A can raise all those objections before the Collector which they have raised through writ petition in hand. If the Collector after hearing the parties comes to the conclusion that the land proposed to be acquired was not for "public purpose", he can submit the report to the Government and the Government may withdraw section 4 Notification. The petitioners, therefore, have an alternate remedy available to them in the shape of objections under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Fifthly, this Court is repository of ultimate appellate jurisdiction conferred by Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After availing all the remedies a available to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, they can file appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act in this Court which will be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges. Wisdom in this regard has been drawn from dictum laid down by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Customs 1999 SCM R 1881.
We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition in hand with no orders as to costs.