1970 PLP 739 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The dispute in this case relates to about 70 kanals of evacuee agricultural land situated in village Taraf Ravi, Tehsil and District Multan. The petitioner firm proposed to acquire it for the construction of a paint mill. On the basis of its application on the 5th November, 1956, the Rehabilitation Commissioner wrote to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan saying that posses sion of the land may be given to the petitioner firm "only if advance payment is made and the existing occupants are provided alternate accommodation before being dispossessed and further subject to the condition that the acquisition proceedings have been taken in hand." In pursuance to these directions the petitioner‑firm deposited a sum of Rs. 11, 365 at the rate of Rs.1,278 per acre and obtained possession of the land on the 17th July 1957. Presum ably the displaced persons in possession were also given alternate accommodation 4else where. Acquisition proceedings were then taken in hand and on the 21st May 1958, the Deputy Commissioner, Multan recommended that the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act may be issued and compensation assessed in consultation with the Custodian Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore, strictly in accordance with rules. On the 9th February 1959, compensation was assessed at Rs. 31,000 per acre but the petitioner‑firm being dissatisfied with this assessment raised objections It was informed on the 30th March 1959, that its possession was unauthorized and if it did not deposit the approximate compensation already assessed the case for the acquisition of land would be dropped and the land taken back. Subsequently on the 20th October 1959, it was asked to state whether it would be prepared to pay the present prevailing current market value of the land amounting to Rs. 1,20,000 per acre. The petitioner‑firm did not agree to this. In the meantime the evacuee lands vested in the Compensation Pool by virtue of a Notification issued by the Government on the 15th April 1949. Thereafter the lands in dispute were resumed but the petitioner‑firm filed a writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, being Writ Petition No. 186 of 1960, to challenge the resumption of the lands and obtained an ad interim order of stay on the 3rd March 1960. The demolition of the buildings constructed on the land by the petitioners was stayed on condition that the petitioner‑firm paid the approximate compensation money as assessed by Government. The petitioner‑firm executed an agreement on the 24th March 1960, agreeing to pay Rs. 1,20,000 per acre as approximate compensation subject to the decision of the High Court. The writ petition was, however, dismissed on the 6th April 1960, on the ground that the Central Government had not even till then given the assent to the acquisition of the evacuee land involved in the case and no proceedings for the acquisition thereof had so far taken place. The agreement entered into between the petitioner firm and the Provincial Government was in the circumstances also held to be of no legal value. The High Court, however, observed that the petitioner‑firm might be entitled to claim damages from the Provincial Government or its officers who had given possession of the land to it for the constructions put up on the land but no definite opinion was expressed. It is clear, therefore, that the High Court did not find that the firm had acquired any right in the land itself. In the meantime the lands were allotted on the 3rd March 1960, to refugees but in view of the fact that on the 7th May 1960, the petitioner‑firm had made a fresh proposal for the acquisition. of only 24 kanals and 1 marla of the land, relinquishing possession of the remaining 46 kanals the allotments of the refugees were cancelled on the 17th July 1960. On the basis of the new proposal a fresh agreement was executed between the petitioner‑firm and the Provincial Govern ment on the 16th March 1961 and a proposal was made to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to obtain the necessary sanction of the Central Government to the acquisition of these lands for the petitioner‑firm. On the 18th December 1961, the Chief Settle ment Commissioner referred the case back to the Settlement Commissioner for enquiry as to why in the new proposal the price was being substantially reduced. The Land Acquisition Officer ultimately on the 18th June 1964, recommended the sale of 36 kanals and 13 marlas at a price of Rs. 4,424 per kanals plus the rent and interest payable by the petitioners for their occupation of the whole area of 70 kanals from 1956. This was forwarded to the Settlement Commissioner but the Settlement Commissioner again asked for the data upon which the recommendation was based. While this correspondence was going on the land was again allotted to refugees on the 1st of July 1964. In this view of the matter the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Acquisition) thought that it would be more appropriate to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act from the refugees. The petitioners, however, made a representation to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 17th July 1965, pointing out that since they had already constructed buildings on this land and installed a factory at a cost of over 3 lacs of rupees, they will suffer an irreparable loss if they were now dispossessed. The settlement Commissioner under subsection (3) of section 9 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act took cognizance of the matter and caused notices to be issued to all the refugees concerned under section 11 of the said Act to show cause as to why their allotments should not be cancelled and after hearing them on the 30th June 1969, came to the conclusion that since the petitioner‑firm had never acquired any right, title or interest in the land, it would not be fair to cancel the allotments, particularly, since the allottees had under section 16 of the said Act become owners of the areas allotted to them. The petitioner‑firm then came to the High Court by way of a revision petition under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act but the application was dismissed in limine on the 28th July 1969. A Division Bench of the High Court upheld the view of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that since the lands had not been acquired the petitioner‑firm had acquired no right title and interest in the lands. They remained, therefore, in the compensation pool and as such were available for allotment under happened in the meantime was merely an exchange of correspondence between various authorities for the acquisition of the land in dispute but nothing had materialised so as to give the petitioners any right to claim the land. The petitioner firm no\v scales special leave to appeal and it has been strenuously contended on its behalf that the Settlement Authorities and the High Court had not applied their minds to the relevant facts of the case, for, if they had done so, they would have come to the conclusion that the order of 5‑11‑1456 by which possession of the land was given was in effect an allotment under section 18 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 or section 15 of the earlier Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1956 and that this allotment did give some kind of a right to the petitioner‑firm in the land. The facts set out above would, however, show that there is no basis for this contention. from the very beginning the intention was to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act and that is why the Deputy Commissioner had even on the 21st May 1958, recommended the issuance of a Notification under section 4 of the said Act In any event reference to the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1956 and the subsequent Act of 1957 would show that an allotment there under by itself did not confer any title. This was merely for the purposes of temporary q rehabilitation and every person to whom evacuee property was allotted, was to hold the same on the terms and conditions laid down by the Custodian. Acquisition of such lands could only take place under the proviso to section 25(2) (s) of the Act of 1957 with the prior approval of the Central Government. The entitlement arose under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Under section 14 of this Act, allotments were to be made to only displaced persons against their verified claims in respect of the properties in the compensation pool. Even the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act to dispose of e properties in the compensation pool by sale or by any other manner was again subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under and would seem to be restricted to disposals in favour of displaced persons. After the lands had gone into the compensation pool even the power under section 25 (2) (s)I of the Act of 1957 would not be available. We see no reason, therefore, to disagree with the finding of the High Court that the petitioner‑firm had acquired no right, title or interest of such a nature as would have taken these lands out of the compensation pool or would have made them disposable otherwise than under the Land Settlement Act or rules made thereunder. Indeed it appears to us that the dispossession of the displaced persons already on the land in the year 1956 could only have taken place if the land was to be acquired for petitioner firm an industrial concern, under either the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, or the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner‑firm to the provisional assessment made for such acquisition and it is for this reason that the recommenda tion of the Deputy Commissioner, made on the 15th May 1958, for tile issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Act was never put into effect. The petitioner‑firm took a grave risk by setting up permanent constructions on this land without first having the question of its acquisition finalizes The only way out for the firm now seems to be to nave the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. If the Provincial Government is still minded to give this land to the petitioner‑firm, it should initiate steps under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition thereof. The petitioner‑firm cannot otherwise insist on having the land taken away from the displaced persons to whom the same has been lawfully allotted. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner‑firm at this stage asks for a recommendation to the same effect as was given by the High Court originally regarding the demolition of the structures erected on the land. It is not possible for us to make any such order after we have come to the conclusion that this petition should be dismissed. It is for the petitioner‑firm now to move the Provin cial Government to acquire the land for it as soon as possible. Petition dismissed.