1992 PLP D1348 (MLD)

Facts giving rise to this civil revision are that respondent No.1, Water and Sanitation Agency, Lahore Development Authority, Lahore, has prepared a scheme for the construction of Waste Water South West Sewerage Treatment Plant in the area of the villages of Jhugian Nagra, Niaz Baig and Babu Sabu in Tehsil and District Lahore. This scheme extends to certain land owned by the petitioners, Ali Hussain and others. The Land Acquisition Collector of respondent No.1, who is respondent No.2 herein, therefore, started proceedings for acquisition of the said land. Accordingly, some notifications were issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners feel that the land acquisition proceedings are not being taken out in accordance with law. They , have, therefore, filed a civil suit challenging the notifications. Besides, respondents Nos.1 and 2, respondents Nos.3 and 4, namely, the District Collector, Lahore, and the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, were impleaded as defendants in the suit.

2. Alongwith the suit, the petitioners made an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from taking further proceedings in regard to acquisition of the land in question and from interfering with their possession over the land in question. They also prayed that status quo in all respects may be ordered to be maintained till the disposal of the suit. Temporary injunction was issued by the Civil Judge before whom the suit was filed. Thereupon, the respondents went in 'appeal before an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and vacated the temporary injunction issued by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order ref the learned .Additional District Judge, the petitioners have come up in revision to this Court.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that time limits prescribed by law and rules on the subject have not been observed by the respondents while issuing various notifications in the instant case and thus the land acquisition proceedings have come to an end. Their plea in this regard has been spelt out in the plaint with reference td the notifications, dates on which the notifications were issued and the law and rules on the subject. Learned counsel for the respondents refutes what has been contended by the petitioners but I cannot record a verdict in this behalf while dealing with the question of temporary injunction. Such verdict will be given by the learned trial Court after hearing the suit. From the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioners, however, I do realise that the petitioners have prima facie case in the sense that their case is an arguable one.

4. As indicated above, the Scheme in question relates to the land of the petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, there are orchards and buildings on the land in dispute. Obviously, execution of the above Scheme would involve digging of the land in dispute, felling of the plants, demolition of buildings, etc., which would not only cause inconvenience to the petitioners but would also result in irreparable loss to them. Thus, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the petitioners and they are likely to suffer irreparable injury if temporary injunction is withheld.

5. In view of what has gone above, therefore, I am inclined to ensure that status quo is maintained during the pendency of the suit. At the same time, it is my desire that if what the respondents contend is correct, execution of the Scheme should not be unnecessarily delayed. Learned counsel for the respondents avers that the respondents have taken possession of the land in question but learned counsel for the petitioners submits otherwise. There is no dispute on the question that no digging of the land in dispute has been made nor anything has been installed there as yet.

6. Looking at the whole case, I allow the respondents to continue with land acquisition proceedings but restrain them from digging the land in question or putting up any installation thereon or changing character of the disputed land in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the suit. As for possession of the land in dispute, I would not express any opinion either way, but I do direct that whosoever is in possession of the said land or any part thereof at the present moment shall remain in possession thereof till the suit is decided.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that respondent No.1wants to execute the scheme urgently because some foreign agencies are also concerned with the execution thereof. I, therefore, direct the learned Civil Judge to decide the suit within two months. He shall, as far as possible, hear the suit from day to day. I hope that the parties will also cooperate with him without creating any insurmountable difficulty for him. If, for any reason, the suit is not decided within two months the learned Civil Judge shall submit his explanation stating the reasons for his non‑compliance with the direction of this Court.

8. The civil revision is disposed of in terms of the above directions with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑73/L Order accordingly.