2003 PLP 944 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th May, 2002. RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Lahore High Court Judgment, dated 14-3-2002 in Writ )petition No.621 of 1971 allowing writ petition filed by Province of Punjab and others, impugning correctness of the order, dated 30-12-1971 passed by Commissioner, Sargodha Division on a Reference from Governor Punjab as well. as from the Administrator, Thai Development Authority i.e. Chief Secretary Punjab.

2. Notice was issued to the respondents as well as the Advocate General, Punjab vide order, dated 6-5-2002 but none has entered appearance.

3. Petitioners' land measuring 213 acres situated iri Chak No.64-MB, Mouza Ahirpur, District Sargodha (now District 'Khusab) was acquired by Thal Development Authority for establishment Of Mandi Town, Joharabad way back. in the year 1951. In terms of the policy decision as contained in letter No.53-C, dated 5th January, 195:2 by the Board of Revenue Punjab, Annex. R/ 1, alternate land had to be granted to the petitioner in Colony Chaks in the close proximity of the Mandi Town as far as possible but the land given to the petitioner in Chak No.40-A/MB (Rakh Mitha Tiwana) was situated 14 miles away 'from the Mandi Town. It was the grievance of the petitioners that the ,alternate land was available for allotment in Chak No-52-MB at a distance of about three miles. Accordingly, they made a representation to the Governor Punjab in a public gathering at joharabad, which wad marked to the Commissioner, Sargodha to look into the matter. A report was also called for from the Thal Development Authority, who also referred -the case to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division for necessary action. On his part, Commissioner, Sargodha vide order, dated 30-12-1970 accepted, the plea taken by the petitioners and directed the, allotment of land in Chak Nos.52-MB and 53-MB. It appears that defunct Agricultural Development Corporation had some claim over this land, who, through the Government of Punjab impugned the order Massed by the Commissioner in the writ petition, which has been accepted by the High Court on the premises that the sanction of the Provincial Government had not been obtained for the grant of land to the petitioners in lieu of land acquired for public purpose.

4. It is contended that valuable proprietary rights of the petitioners secured and guaranteed under Article 24 of the Constitution could not be abridged and curtailed or terminated to their disadvantage without just and lawful compensation. The grounds, which weighed with the learned Judge in the High Court, on the face of it ,appear to be unreasonable and hypertechnical in nature, inasmuch as, the Commissioner formed a part of the Government of Punjab, whose responsibility, inter alia, was to compensate the petitioners to provide lands in lieu of the lands compulsorily acquired. In our considered opinion, even if sanction or Provincial Government was necessary, it could be obtained ex post facto for which petitioner's rights cannot be jeopardized. Essentially, the lane was granted to ADC for development but it appears that it was not used for the purpose for which it was granted. Furthermore, ADC was dissolved through Presidential Order No.5 of 1972 with effect from 7-2-1972 and its rights and liabilities devolved on the Provincial Government.

5. Contentions raised appear to be of first impression and not without substance. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted to consider the questions raised at the Bar.

6. Learned counsel states at the Bar that the petitioners are in physical occupation of the land for the last over thirty years. Their possession shall not be disturbed till the decision of this appeal. Q.M.H./A-273/S Leave granted.