YLR 2022

2022 PLP 110 (YLR)

ARBAB NIZAM UD DIN KASI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Balochistan
Decided Date
2020-August-11
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2022 PLP 110 (YLR)
Forum / Court Balochistan
Bench Members N/A
Parties ARBAB NIZAM UD DIN KASI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and others — Respondents
Primary Law Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 110 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 110 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Balochistan bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 110 (YLR) (ARBAB NIZAM UD DIN KASI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)

Representation

  • Azmatullah Kasi for Petitioner.
  • Arbab Tahir, Advocate General for Respondents.
  • 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General and perused the record. It reflected that for widening of Killi Sabzal Bypass Road the respondent No. 5 issued notice on 23rd September, 2019 for vacating house/shop within one day for the reason that through Award No. 10-RB/Acq/S-R/2019/1812 dated 15th July, 2019 the same has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act).

Headnotes / Summary

S.18

Reference to Court

Scope

Petitioner sought enhanced rate of compensation of structural value of his bungalow which was being acquired for the purpose of widening of a bypass

Validity

Claim of the petitioner was only for compensation of structural value of the bungalow for which petitioner had alternate remedy under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.

The petitioner filed instant constitutional petition with the prayer: "a. To declare assessment rates for the bungalow of petitioner is illegal, unlawful and against the relevant rules, as such be declared null and void; b. To direct the respondents to properly value the bungalow of petitioner and place the same in category A; c. To direct the respondents to pay the construction rate of Rs.149,11,345.9 to the petitioner. d. Any other relief which may deem fit and proper of (-) the circumstances of the matter may also be awarded."

2. Facts of the instant petition are that petitioner constructed a bungalow on his ancestral property by spending huge amount. The petitioner used expensive construction items for residential purpose and for couple of years the petitioner is residing therein. It was case of the petitioner that recently National Logistic Cell (NLC) sanctioned for widening of Killi Sabzal Bypass and has started levelling agriculture lands from Samungli Road near Kidney Hospital. Further, the ancestral properties of the petitioner and other relatives have also come in the widening of road. It was case of the petitioner that neither the property of the petitioner has been acquired as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, nor the petitioner and others have been informed that under which circumstances their properties have been taken for the said purpose, as such the petitioner approached Honorable High Court by filing C.P. No. 1013 of 2019, as one day notice time was provided for vacation of the residential bungalow, which was admitted. The respondents issued structure cost of different bungalows in the area as notified already and in this regard the construction worth has been circulated at serial No. 4 as Rs.280,000/- and at serial No. 5 as Rs.75,34,500/-. It was further stated that the bungalow of Arbab Fasi-ud-Din has been estimated at Rs.26,508,200/- and same has been placed at category A, while construction of the bungalow of petitioner has been placed in category B. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner got consulted firms/engineers, who estimated the Arbab Villas to Rs.1,49,11,345.9. The petitioner contended that due to escalation the rates of construction is very high, whereas the calculated amount is very less, as such petitioner approached this court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General and perused the record. It reflected that for widening of Killi Sabzal Bypass Road the respondent No. 5 issued notice on 23rd September, 2019 for vacating house/shop within one day for the reason that through Award No. 10-RB/Acq/S-R/2019/1812 dated 15th July, 2019 the same has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act).

4. Under Section 4 of the Act, if any property is needed for any public purpose, the Collector shall cause public notice, any officer authorized by the Government entered upon the land, survey it. The interested person or company may within thirty days file objections to the Collector. If land owner is not satisfied from the Award he may file Reference under Section 18 of the Act. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 18 of the Act: "

18. Reference to Court.

(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the appointment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made

(a) If the person making it was present or representing before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, subsection (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award. Whichever period shall first expire."

5. In prayer clause the petitioner pressed for payment of construction rate of Rs. 149,11,345.9. The land in question was acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Act, which prescribed procedure for determining compensation. It is settled that where the alternate remedy provided for redressal of the grievance the constitutional petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has alternate remedy to file Reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan held in case Ch. Muhammad Ismail v Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore PLD 1996 SC 246: "

7. It is also noteworthy that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Articles 199 and 203 of the Constitution is of extraordinary nature and is, therefore, to be exercised sparingly. The High Court has to be specially cautious in exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction when other adequate remedy is available to the party invoking that jurisdiction. Similar observations were made by the Peshawar Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan in the case of Fazal Din alias Mina etc., cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while deciding a writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, the provisions whereof were somewhat similar to those of Article 199 of the present Constitution of 1973. The observations in point read as follows: "The basic principle, however, to be kept in view by the Court should be that the power under Article 98, where the alternative remedy is not exhausted, is exercised sparingly with caution and circumspection; and ordinary only in those cases where grave injustice may otherwise ensue." The prayer clause clearly shows that the claim of the petitioner is only for compensation of structural value of bungalow, for which the petitioner has alternate remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the instant constitutional petition being not maintainable is dismissed. SA/236/Bal. Petition dismissed.