2006 PLP 1090 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Petitioner No.1 having purchased Shop No.62 and petitioner No.2 being purchaser of Shop No.60 located in Faisal Market, Dijkot Road, Faisalabad, were doing their respective business when on western side of the shops Dijkot Road was planned to be expanded and their shops became part of the expanded road. Petitioners being aggrieved of expansion of Dijkot Road by inclusion of their shops therein, without opting to acquisition proceedings under the relevant law or through negotiations and without payment of compensation to them, assailed complained action of the respondents by tiling instant constitution petition, wherein besides notice to the respondents, they were restrained vide order, dated 7-1-2000 in C.M. 2 of 1999 from causing demolition of both the shops of the petitioners. Respondents, in spite of restraint order by this Court demolished some portion of the shops of the petitioners, which necessitating filing of Criminal Original No.1015/W of 2000. All the respondents on Court's requisition, filed their reports and parawise comments wherein they admitted ownership of the petitioners over the shops in their possession and claimed that expansion of road was inevitable in view of inflated traffic flow on the Dijkot Road which also needed construction of footpaths besides laying of drains etc. According to the report of respondent No.1, after long negotiations, demands of the petitioners were accepted and they were provided alternate site on the main Dijkot Road adjacent to their property, which was much more valuable as compared to the property utilized. Respondent No.1 could not deny that structure of the petitioners' shops were pulled down and portion of the land beneath those shops was included in expanded Dijkot Road.

2. In the light of the reports/parawise comments by the respondents this Court on 3-7-2003 passed a detailed order holding that respondents were responsible to compensate the petitioners either by way of cash compensation or alternate land/plot and provide them opportunity to redress their grievances by the next date of hearing but respondents did not care to comply with the said order or to fulfil their own commitments as per report submitted by respondent No.l. Record revealed that respondents had been trying to put off the matter by seeking adjournments on different pretext and the case since 2003 is lingering without any solid progress. Notices to the respondents were ordered to be repeated for today through ordinary process, registered cover acknowledgment due and courier service and the. notices through all these modes have been served but nobody appeared on their behalf in spite of repeated calls. Respondent No.1 was initially represented through Mr. Tahir Munir Malik, Advocate, whose name has also appeared in the cause list but he is also" not in attendance, hence all the respondents are proceeded against ex parte.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record, appended herewith. By introduction of District Governments through Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, respondent No.1 has been taken over by Town Municipal Administration and by virtue of section 180 of the Ordinance (ibid) all the properties, assets and liabilities of local councils namely Metropolitan Corporations, Municipal Corporations, District Councils, Municipal Committees etc. were to be succeeded by the bodies nominated therein and by virtue of its clause (a) City District Government was to take over Municipal Corporations in the concerned City Districts, thus, all the liabilities which were to be discharged by respondent No.1 have now to be fulfilled A by the City District Government, Faisalabad. Rights of the petitioners to compensation and their entitlement stand already determined by this Court vide order, dated 3-7-2003, which shall be read as part of this judgment. Respondents had not denied ownership of the petitioners over their Shops Nos.60 and 62 in Faisal Market, Dijkot Road, Faisalabad, which were pulled down and land beneath was included in the expanded area of abutting road, thus, there appears to be no lawful excuse for the respondents in not providing the compensation as in report submitted by respondent No.1. City District Government, Faisalabad, being successor of Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, is accordingly liable to compensate the petitioners.

4. For the reasons noted above, instant petition is accepted and City District Government, Faisalabad, is directed to allot/allocate alternate land/plots to the petitioners in lieu of their properties utilized for expansion of Dijkot Road, Faisalabad, besides awarding them compensation for the structure pulled down by them. The determination and allocation shall be done by the Nazim concerned, after hearing the petitioners within a period of four months, in accordance with law. Compliance report shall be submitted to Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. There will be no order as to costs. M.B.A./B-13/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.