Delay in payment of compensation

2022 PLD 75 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.5 & 14(1)Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), Ss. 25 & 27Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 4Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 23, 24 & 199Constitutional petitionAcquisition of landDuties and powers of authoritiesNegotiated compensationDelay in payment of compensationEffect

Petitioners were owners of lands and their grievance was that after acquisition of their lands no compensations were paid to them

Validity

Negotiated settlement approved by Executive Board of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA) was binding and parties were committed to perform their respective obligations

Settlement agreement between the parties met the requirements of just compensation in the context of Art. 24 of the Constitution

High Court directed Federal Government to ensure implementation of settlement agreement

Power of compulsory acquisition or eminent domain was abused by Capital Development Authority (CDA) by denying to affected property owners their acknowledged vested rights

Such was a Constitutional and statutory duty of CDA and Federal Government to 'compensate' all affected citizens whose rights stood admitted and acknowledged

Every affected citizen who was subjected to power of compulsory land acquisition and whose right to either allotment of plot or payment in monetary terms was acknowledged by CDA had a Constitutional right to be 'compensated' without further delay based on the principle of equivalence, otherwise it would be confiscatory and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 9, 23 & 24 of the Constitution

Such was a statutory and Constitutional duty of Federal Government to formulate a policy regarding enforcement of acknowledged vested rights of affected citizens who were subjected to the power of eminent domain but were not compensated despite lapse of inordinate delay

High Court directed Federal Government to give such directions to CDA as were necessary to enforce acknowledged vested rights

Market values determined through awards announced before year 2010 had lost their efficacy and payment made on the basis thereof was likely to have confiscatory effect even if it was in addition to 8% per annum

No property could be legitimately condemned by exercising the power of eminent domain if the owner was not 'compensated'

Such was mandatory for authorities to reassess market values in a fair and transparent manner to avoid likelihood of confiscatory effect, followed by prompt payment directly to the affected owner of the property

High Court directed Federal Government to formulate uniform policy regarding acquisition of land, determination of market value or giving rehabilitation benefit in case of exercise of power of eminent domain by CDA or FGEHA, as the case could be

High Court further directed Federal Government that while formulating policy it would ensure that the policy was in consonance with the rights of citizens likely to be affected and duties of public functionaries towards them

High Court also directed that Federal Government through its policy directions would ensure that procedures adopted while exercising the power of eminent domain was clear, predictable, transparent and fair so that opportunities for corruption were not created

Federal Government could also consider directing CDA and FGEHA, as the case could be, to issue awards for acquisition of land and built up properties so as to avoid insurmountable complications

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2018 PLC 264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 3, Sched-IIIEmployee working in mining industry suffering with Pulmonary Kock diseasePayment of compensationScope

Petition for payment of compensation by employee was dismissed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation on the ground that alleged disease was not included in the "occupational diseases" relating to the workmen serving in mining industry

Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and remanded the matter for determination of compensation

Validity

Employee had been working in the mining industry and during service, contracted a lungs disease namely 'Pulmonary Kock' and was declared unfit for the Job by the Medical Board

Right to health and medical care was a Fundamental Right of a worker

Compelling necessity to work in an industry for bread-winning for himself and his dependents was not to be at the cost of health and vigour of a workman

Right to health would include right to live in a clean, hygienic and safe environment

State was bound to provide at least minimum condition ensuring human dignity

Company had failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 CLCN 150 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 31Delay in payment of compensationDecree holder's own fault

Payment of compensation was delayed only to the appellant/one of the decree holders due to his fault by mentioning his wrong/two different names in the reference petition

Said matter was resolved by the appellant much after when rest of decree holders had received their respective shares of finally determined compensation along with interest so judgment debtors were not found at fault

Appeal of said decree holder being bereft of merits, was dismissed in limine.