2010 SCMR 801 (PLP)

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.

This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.1143 to 1145 of 2002 as they are directed against the judgment dated 10-5-2002 vide which through a consolidated judgment, learned High Court dismissed three constitutional petitions.

2. Facts giving rise to these appeals are that on the application of respondent-Company the land subject-matter of these appeals measuring 24 Acres, 3 Marlas was sought to be acquired through notification dated 8-1-1980 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said acquisition was challenged by the appellant land-owners mainly on two grounds: first that the purpose for which the original notification referred to above was issued is no more in the field and second part of the land was purchased through a registered deed for the establishment of a religious institution. In the earlier round of litigation, the learned High Court disposed of appellants' earlier constitutional petitions on 23-10-2000 with a direction to the Commissioner to consider the objection raised by the appellants and decide the matter afresh. The Commissioner, Gujranwala, vide his order dated 17-4-2001, overruled the objections. This order was challenged in the constitutional petitions which stand dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

3. Leave was granted by this Court vide the order dated 4-7-2002 on the ground as follows:

"Messrs Nasir Siddique Corporation (Pakistan) Ltd., respondent No.5 made a request for acquisition of the land in dispute for establishment of Steel Glass Product Unit on 30-10-1979. On 24-11-1979 the Land Acquisition Collector (Industries), Lahore made a report that the said land was needed by the said Company, therefore, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 28-6-1980. The said Company got a notification issued under section 17(4) of the Act depriving the owners of the land to raise objection under sections 5 and 5-A of the said Act. This notification was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.3417 of 1984 before the High Court which was accepted on 28-10-1984 and the petitioners were allowed to file objections against the acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) made a report on 22-2-1986 that land in question was not needed by the said company as already sufficient land was available to it at the spot. On 24-5-1986 the Collector Acquisition also made a report that the land was not needed by the said company as sufficient land was available with it and if it wanted 'any more land it should acquire through negotiation. This report by the Collector was, however, withdrawn on 23-10-1986 without hearing the petitioners. This order was challenged by filing Writ Petitions Nos.5010 of 1986 and 5009 of 1986 before the High Court which were decided on 23-10-2000 with the observations that the question whether the said company needed the land in dispute should be decided afresh after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) dated 22-2-1986. The Commissioner through order dated 17-4-2001 held that the property was required by the said Company. In arriving at the said conclusion he mainly relied upon the report dated 24-11-1979 which was originally made but did not take into consideration the reports dated 22-2-1986 and 24-5-1986. We have gone through the report dated 22-2-1986 of the Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) and find that he had elaborately discussed material available on record as regards the availability of the land with the said company for establishment of said industrial unit. In the presence of the said report the reliance on the earlier report dated 24-11-1979 was neither proper nor just. Even otherwise, Nasir Siddique Corporation for which the land was being acquired did not exist and new company was formed in the name of Messrs Tariq Glass Industry which had no nexus with the original company, as such, the acquisition should have been abandoned on that score too. The above contentions, inter alia, require examination to consider which leave is granted. Till disposal of the appeal, status quo shall be maintained."

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Commissioner was required by the learned High Court to decide the matter afresh after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 22-2-1986 which was to the effect that the land was no longer required for the original purpose for which the notification for acquisition of land had been issued. He further contended that the learned High Court did not appreciate that the glass plant/corporation for which the property was required was no more in existence and further that 40 Kanals from the land in question was purchased for construction of religious institution and the same could not have been acquired vide impugned notification.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the available record.

6. In dismissing the constitutional petitions of the appellants the learned High Court had considered both the objections with regard to the impugned acquisition. It came to the conclusion that there was nothing in evidence to indicate that the change in the name of the company had also changed the purpose of acquisition. With regard to the objection that part of the land had been acquired for a religious purpose, the learned High Court found that it is a matter of record that no religious institution is B being run at the spot. The Commissioner had also dealt with both the objections pursuant to the remand order of the learned High Court in the earlier round of litigation. In the order dated 17-4-2001, the Commissioner found as follows:

"The objection raised at S.No.(iv) of para No.7 herein above is also without any force whatsoever because the report dated 22-2-1986 formulated by Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Khan, Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, is contrary to his earlier report dated 24-11-1979, wherein he has categorically stated that land already held by Nasir Siddique Corporation (Pakistan) Limited is insufficient and recommended acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that under section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, only the District Collector is competent to entertain and hear the objections and not the Land Acquisition Collector. It is precisely for this reason the Board of Revenue Punjab vide its letter dated 18-2-1986(sic) directed the Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) to stop inquiry in respect of acquisition of land for Tariq Glass Industries Limited (formerly Nasir Siddique Corporation Pakistan Limited). It appears that the Land acquisition Collector (Industries) formulated his report dated 22-2-1986 in defiance of the directions of the Board of Revenue Punjab. Therefore, the said report is without lawful authority. Accordingly, this objection is also ruled out."

7. With regard to the objection that 40 Kanals of the land had been dedicated to a religious purpose, the Commissioner observed that the owner of the said land (Ashfaque Ahmed) which was reportedly meant for a religious purpose had authorized his general attorney Mukhtar Ahmed to sell the land and receive consideration. That being so, it could not be said that the said part of the land was either meant or was being used for a religious purpose.

8. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are dismissed, with no order as to costs. M.H./S-8/SC Appeal dismissed.