1986 PLP 2073 (CLC)

(vi) prepare, implement and enforce schemes for environmental improvements, housing, . urban renewal including siuons improvement and redevelopment, solid waste disposal, transportation and traffic, health and education facilities and preservation of objects or places of historical, archaeological, scientific, cultural and recreational importance. Preparation and Execution of Schemes 12. (1) The Authority shall, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, prepare schemes for the area or any part thereof and execute or have them executed in the prescribed manner. (2) All such schemes prepared by the Authority shall be submitted to the Government for its approval, except those schemes, the provisional estimated cost of which does not exceed such limit as may be prescribed by Rules or for which no loan or grant is required from the Government. (3) The Authority shall publish the sanctioning of any scheme in the official Gazette. (4) The publication of a sanction under subsection (3), shall be conclusive evidence that the scheme has bee duly framed and sanctioned.

General

16. The Authority shall, in discharging its functions act and be guided, by such directions as Government may give to it from time to time. The Rules on the subject are known as the Multan Development Authority (Preparation of Schemes) Rules 1978. Rules 3 and 4 being relevant may be reproduced below:- 3.(1) Schemes for which loan or grant is required:- All schemes prepared by the Authority for which loan or grant is required from the Government but the provisional estimated cost of which does not exceed twenty lacs rupees shall be approved by the Director-General and copies thereof shall be supplied to the Planning and Development Department, Finance Department and Administration Department concerned for their information. . (2) All schemes prepared by the Authority for which loan or grant from the Government is required and provisional estimated cost of which ranges from 20 lacs to 40 lacs shall be approved by the Development Committee and scheme over 40 lacs shall be presented to the Planning and Development Department, Government of the Punjab for necessary approval. (3) All schemes prepared by the Authority for which loan or grant from the Government is required and the provisional estimated cost of which exceeds 50 lacs rupees shall be submitted to Government for sanction.

4. Schemes for which no loan or grant is required:- All schemes prepared by the authority for which no loan or grant from the Government is required shall be approved by the authority or by such officers or Committees to whom such powers may be delegated by the authority under section 10 of the Act. From a bare perusal of the afore-noted provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is manifest that the sanction of the Government is necessary in respect of those schemes for which the loan or grant is required or the provisional estimated cost exceeds 20 lacs rupees. The scheme under challenge is a self-financed scheme, loan or grant from the Government was neither required nor was requested. Such a scheme as such was not required to be submitted to the Government under section 12 of the aforesaid Act and as such the sanction of the scheme was to be, accorded by the Authority itself. The plea that no scheme as a matter of fact was ever prepared has been successfully controverted by producing the record of the Town Planning Branch. This plea is also devoid of merit as admittedly phases 1 and 2 have undoubtedly been implemented on the spot and this objection as to non-framing of the scheme has only been raised when phase 2-A is being put into execution. The alternate plea that the scheme having been sanctioned by the Authority itself is invalid in law and that the scheme required the sanction of the Government is also devoid of merit for the reasons already given above. There is also no force in the argument that the phase developed of the scheme is unauthorised as in the scheme itself the execution thereof was spread over a number of years. Again as no basis was disclosed for contending that the proceedings of acquisition held were mala fide in law this plea cannot succeed. Coming to the argument that the Act of 1973 is ultra vires of Article 24 of the Constitution suffice it to say the said Article cannot be pressed into service as the said Article falls in that part of the Constitution which is in abeyance under P.C.O. Moreover, in the case of Hafiz Muhammad Ameen v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan P L D 1981 F S C 23 while dealing with Article 24(4) it has been observed as under:- "This takes away the power of the Court to declare invalid existing laws and other laws (e.g. Act II of 1974 Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976), even if they fail to provide for any compensation for or provide for compensation which is much less than the market value of the land acquired under their provisions." As regards the plea that individual notices were not served it is suffice to observe that this factual plea was controverted by the respondents by placing on record the copies of the notices served on the petitioners. This matter as is being disputed necessarily requires the holding of an inquiry. This exercise cannot be undertaken in constitutional Jurisdiction. The question whether the notices were served or not as well as the question whether the compensation awarded was reasonable can also be agitated before the relevant authorities by availing remedy provided by law. The petitioners, if so advised, are free to resort to the legs remedy available to them under the law.

3. As regards the plea that the compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000 per Acre is meagre and the same cannot be considered as a fair compensation for the land acquired is also without merit as the compensation at the aforesaid rate is fixed by the Statute itself.

4. The last plea urged was that because of the delayed action of the authority the land has been sold by executing sale-deeds at least 66 in number and these purchasers have built their houses, workshops and have raised other structures and because of the construction so raised the land has not remained fit for acquisition. It was also urged that in Civil Revision No. 243 of 1982 learned counsel for the authority made a statement that the 'impugned notification' has been withdrawn and in view of the aforesaid stand the purchasers who had purchased the property in view of the statement so made cannot now be made to suffer. It is true that in the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court the word 'impugned notification' appears but from the word 'impugned notification' it cannot be inferred that the notification sanctioning the scheme was stated to have been withdrawn. A perusal of the memorandum of revision petition would show that letter, dated the 6th of January, 1980 whereby a direction was issued by the Director/ General banning the attestation of mutations or registration of deeds in respect of land falling within the controlled area of the housing scheme. This impugned letter was withdrawn by making a statement by the counsel for the authority. Admittedly the notification declaring the land as controlled area was never withdrawn. In view of the above purchasers from the original owners of the land in dispute cannot successfully challenge the implementation of the phase 2-A of the scheme. They may, however, claim compensation for the construction, if any, existing on the date of acquisition.

5. In view of the afore-noted findings no assistance can be had from the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners viz. Lahore Improvement Trust v. The Custodian Evacuee Property PLD 1970 Lah. 257 and The Murree Brewery Company Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan Works Division P L D 1972 S C 279.

6. For the reasons given above there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed in limine. H . B . T . Petition dismissed.