2007 PLP 1480 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Instant constitutional petition assailed the order dated 31-5-2004 passed by the Director Estate Management, QAT/LDA, Lahore to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence whereby compensation already assessed by the LAC was held to be justified.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioner's father owned a piece of land which was acquired in the year 1963 by the Housing and Physical Planning Department for laying a Residential Housing Scheme which subsequently transferred to the Lahore Development Authority. Father of the petitioner was not granted any exemption or cash compensation and the petitioner approached to the Provincial Ombudsman, claiming compensation of the land acquired/utilized. The Provincial Ombudsman required the Director Estate Management to place the matter before the Authority for allotment of plot. Against the direction of the Provincial Ombudsman L.D.A. represented before the Governor of the Punjab but without any success, as representation was declined on 31-8-2002.

3. Under the directions of the Provincial Ombudsman, case of the petitioner came up before the Authority wherein it was decided that:-- "No relaxation of policy shall be allowed. All those land owners who have not received compensation of their acquired land in the Township scheme shall be entitled to receive only cash compensation determined in the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no plot shall be allotted in such cases."

4. Petitioner being aggrieved of the decision of the Authority, dated 8-12-2003, filed a constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.4482 of 2004) which was disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties 1-4-2004 with the following operative order, namely:

"In view of the above consensus between the parties, I declare order, dated 18-12-2003 passed by respondent No.2 as non-existent and remit him the matter of reassessment of price to be worked out afresh in the light of the order of the Honourable Provincial Ombudsman, dated 31-8-2002 after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law. Since only price of the land is to be evaluated and this matter hinges for determination since long, I direct respondent No.2 (Director Estate Management-respondent in the present petition) to expeditiously complete the matter preferably within a period of 2 months. The petitioner will appear before respondent No.2 on 7-4-2004. This petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to cost."

5. Petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and got recorded his statement. Some query was said to have been posed to the Housing and Physical Planning Department by respondent No.2 who ultimately sent a letter dated 31-5-2004 to the petitioner conveying that compensation assessed by the LAC was justified. Petitioner being aggrieved of decision by the Director Estate Management dated 31-5-2004 filed instant petition with .the relief noted above. Respondents in response to notice by this Court have appeared and were represented through their Legal Advisor.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Apparently, the Director Estate Management has not complied with the undertaking given before this Court on 1-4-2004; order of the Provincial Ombudsman dated 31-8-2002 and the decision of the Authority dated 8-12-2003. Prima facie, petitioner was finally refused exemption of any plot under the decision of the authority dated 8-12-2003 and he was held entitled to receive cash compensation worked out in the award by the LAC. This decision was adjudged by this Court on 1-4-2004 with the consent of the parties and thereafter the Director Estate Management was obliged to work out the fresh price of land of the petitioner but this exercise was illegally avoided. Since order impugned dated 31-5-2004 is in clear conflict with the earlier decision of petitioner's writ petition thus the same cannot be allowed to be sustained. Respondent No.2 should have opted legal modes of determining the price of the land as per their own commitment. Needless to mention here that while determining the value/price of the land, its location, potential and rate in the vicinity would have helped to accomplish the task but none of these methods were adverted. Simply saying compensation assessed by the LAC was justified was not compliance of consent order, dated 1-4-2004.

7. For the reasons noted above, instant petition is accepted and impugned order, dated 31-5-2004 being bad at law, is declared to be void and non-existent in the eye of law, with the result that the matter of determination of price of the land of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the respondent No.2 who will decide the same afresh in accordance with law in association of the petitioner. Petitioner shall be summoned by the respondent No.2 through a written notice. There will be no order as to costs. S.A.K./M-375/L Petition accepted.