2021 PLP 1261 (YLR)

ATIR MAHMOOD, J.

Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 2039/2020, 2360/2020, 1739/2020, 1813/2020, 1671/2020, 1853/2021, 2209/2020, 1630/2020 and 1412/2020 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

2. Succinctly, the respondents initiated acquisition proceedings for the land in revenue estate of Malikpur Azizal for the purpose of construction of Dadochha Dam (hereinafter referred to as "the dam"). In this regard, Notification No.717/LAC/DDR under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the Act") was issued on 02.11.2010 for acquisition of land measuring 3005 Kanal-17 marla. The respondents issued an addendum notification No. 307/LAC/DC dated 12.03.2020 whereby additional land of village Malikpur Azizal measuring 806 kanal-8 marla was included. Thereafter, urgency was invoked by issuing notification No.LAC-1/RWP/AR/49 dated 21.04.2020 under sections 17(4) of the Act. The said notifications have been challenged in these writ petitions with the prayer that the same be declared illegal and unlawful.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. Following points have been put before this Court for decision: (i) Whether the respondents had, after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act, unlimited time to proceed further in the matter? (ii) Whether addendum can be issued after more than 9 years and 4 months in continuation of proceedings under Section 4 of the Act? (iii) Whether urgency could be invoked by the respondents while issuing notification under section 17(4) of the Act? I take up these points one by one.

5. As far as availability of unlimited time or otherwise with the respondents is concerned, it is an admitted fact the respondents issued notification under section 4 of the Act on 02.11.2010 for acquisition of land measuring 3005 kanal-17 marla which was published in official gazette on 03.11.2010. Thereafter, there was complete silence for more than 9 years and four months and then, addendum acquisition notification including further land measuring 806 kanals-8 marla was issued on 12.03.2020 which was published in official gazette on 13.03.2020. No notification under Section 5 of the Act was issued nor any extension was sought for, nor granted by the Board of Revenue nor any other proceedings took place in pursuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act rather addendum was issued on 12.03.2020 after more than 9 years and 4 months of notification under section 4 of the Act and then notification under section 17(4) of the Act was issued to invoke urgency in the matter. Though the provisions of Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, which prescribed a period of one year for issuance of notice under section 5 from the date of issuance of Notification under section 4 of the Act, were declared to be ultra vires to the Act, in case Messrs Mehraj Flour Mills and others v. Provincial Government and others (2001 SCMR 1806) yet it nowhere gives unfettered powers to the acquiring agency to sleepover the rights of the citizens and not to the conclude the acquisition proceedings and had unlimited time to conclude the acquisition process rather the respondents were required to complete the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time as the land owners, whose lands were proposed to be acquired, could not be put in agony of uncertainty for such a long period of more than nine years. Therefore, notification under section 4 of the Act dated 02.11.2010 has become redundant and unproceedable. Reliance is placed upon the law laid down in cases Divisional Engineer (Dev.) N-II T & T Gujranwala and 3 others v. Rana Muhammad Sharif (2002 CLC 985 Lahore) and Chiniot Co-operative Housing Society Limited through President v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Department and 2 others (PLD 2016 Lahore 293). There may not be an exact definition for the term "reasonable time" and the same vary in different cases. In case titled Mst. Kubra Amjad v. Mst. Yasmeen Tariq and others (PLD 2019 SC 704), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has interpreted the term "reasonable period" in the following words: "It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word "reasonable". The reason varies in its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he thinks. The dictionary meaning of the "reasonable time" is to be so much time as is necessary, under the circum-stances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case. In other words it means, as soon as circumstances permit." (Emphasis provided)

6. Regarding issuance of addendum after long period of nine years and four months of notification under section 4 of the Act, it appears that the respondents have issued the addendum just to deprive the land owners from the proper and adequate compensation of their lands proposed to be acquired. Under the law, while making the award, the compensation of the acquired land is determined on the basis of the prices prevailed in that area in the preceding one year of the notification under section 4 of the Act. If the notification under section 4 of the Act dated 02.11.2010 is allowed to continue through the addendum, it will amount to allow the respondents to give compensation of the acquired land to the land owners at the rates prevailing in the year preceding to 02.11.2010 and if it is disallowed, the respondents will have to pay the price of the land prevailing in the area as of today. The price of the land is ever at increase and there is a lot of difference in value of the land in the year 2010 and that in the year 2020. The price of the land in the year 2010 cannot be equated with that of the same land in 2020 as prices of the land have increased manifold during the said period. Apparently, the potential value of the land proposed to be acquired has also increased as various housing schemes/ societies have been developed nearby. Therefore, the act of the respondents to issue addendum in 2020 in pursuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act issued in 2010 is not only a mala fide on their part but also a dacoity on the rights of the land owners aimed at to get undue benefit therefrom by depriving the land owners from the true value of their properties which is not only unjustified but also indefensible. Needless to observe that the acquisition law is an oppressive law whereby the land owners are deprived from their right of ownership of land by the state. Being so, it is the duty and responsibility of the state to protect and safeguard the rights of the landowners by providing them proper and adequate value of their properties. Furthermore, the amount of compensation has been deposited by the acquiring agency in May 2019, June, 2019, August 2019 and April 2020. Had this amount been deposited in the year 2010 or 2011 when the acquisition proceedings were initiated and had the award been made at that time, then the compensation granted at that time might have been accepted by the land owners or there might be a slight difference in between the amount of compensation awarded and the amount demanded by the land owners. But after more than 9 years and 4 months, the situation has altogether changed, therefore, the land owners cannot be expected to accept today the rates of their lands prevailing ten years before. Report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents reflect that the request was made by DHA/respondent No.6 for shifting of the Dam Site 6 Kms upstream of the original Dam Site which was not acceded to and thereafter, the present Government has made statement before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the dam will be constructed at the same site which was first chosen and selected. This statement shows mala fide on the part of the respondents as it reflects that the government officials used to negotiate with the mighty property dealers to save their lands in order to benefit them but no effort was, not to speak of protection of right of ownership of lands of the poor land owners, made to even give proper compensation to them. In view of the aforesaid, the addendum being based on mala fide coupled with the fact that the original notification under section 4 of the Act is not proceedable, is illegal and unlawful.

7. The other point before this Court is as to whether there was any urgency in the matter and the respondents could issue notification under section 17(4) of the Act. Since the matter pertains to public interest as the public at large is expected to benefit from the dam to be constructed over the acquired land, the urgency could be invoked by the respondents, therefore, I see no illegality in issuance of notification under section 17(4) of the Act provided the preceding notification under section 4 of the Act and addendum thereto have been legal and lawful. However, since the earlier notifications under section 4 of the Act and addendum thereto are, as noted hereinabove, redundant and illegal, therefore, the notification under section 17(4) of the Act, issued in pursuance of redundant/illegal notifica-tions, cannot sustain.

8. For what has been discussed above, all the writ petitions in hand are allowed and the impugned notifications are set aside. The respondents are, however, set at liberty to acquire the land for construction of the proposed dam by way of issuance of fresh notification under section 4 of the Act. MQ/Q-1/L Petitions allowed.