Acquisition of Property

2012 CLD 675 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 17(4)Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.30, 31, 32, 451 & 452Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44Writ petitionAcquisition of propertyPublic purposeScope

Notification issued by Collector for acquisition of property for construction of a Power Project by company, had been challenged by the owners of the property

Petitioners (owners) had contended that said company being a non-State-Subject and not registered in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, acquisition of property for such company was neither lawful nor same was being acquired for the public purpose

Validity

Term "company" would mean a company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984

Certificate issued by Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, had revealed that the company had delivered the necessary documents required under Ss.30, 31, 32 & 451 of Companies Ordinance, 1984; and thereafter the proceedings of acquisition of land in the company's favour had been made

Once any company was registered after fulfilling the requirements of proceedings then it could not be said that the company was non-State Subject

Purpose for which land was being acquired for the company was of public utility

Even otherwise acquisition proceedings, though were being taken in favour of company, but ownership of said project would be given to Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government

Controversy that the company was not State Subject had, therefore, become irrelevant

Company had also stated in written statement that their status was that of collector/lessee and; they would use the project only for 35 years, subject to payment of settled tariff to Azad Government

Contention of the petitioners that property in question had been acquired for the company, being misconceived was turned down, in circumstances.

2012 PLD 1 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 17(4)Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.30, 31, 32, 451 & 452Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44Writ petitionAcquisition of propertyPublic purposeScope

Notification issued by Collector for acquisition of property for construction of a Power Project by company, had been challenged by the owners of the property

Petitioners (owners) had contended that said company being a non-State-Subject and not registered in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, acquisition of property for such company was neither lawful nor same was being acquired for the public purpose

Validity

Term "company" would mean a company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984

Certificate issued by Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, had revealed that the company had delivered the necessary documents required under Ss.30, 31, 32 & 451 of Companies Ordinance, 1984; and thereafter the proceedings of acquisition of land in the company's favour had been made

Once any company was registered after fulfilling the requirements of proceedings then it could not be said that the company was non-State Subject

Purpose for which land was being acquired for the company was of public utility

Even otherwise acquisition proceedings, though were being taken in favour of company, but ownership of said project would be given to Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government

Controversy that the company was not State Subject had, therefore, become irrelevant

Company had also stated in written statement that their status was that of contractor/lessee and; they would use the project only for 35 years, subject to payment of settled tariff to Azad Government

Contention of the petitioners that property in question had been acquired for the company, being misconceived was turned down, in circumstances.

2011 MLD 1489 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 9, 11, 17-A, 18, 23 & 54Acquisition of propertyDetermination of amount of compensationReference to Referee CourtEnhancement of amount of compensationSix shops owned by respondent were acquired for which market value was fixed as Rs. 1,06,096/35

Referee Court had enhanced the amount from Rs.1,06,096/35 to Rs. 6,74,600/20, Acquiring Authority had filed appeal against judgment of the Referee Court

Validity

Before filing objection petition, respondent owner, moved an application to the District Co-ordination Officer for assessment of compensation of acquired shop, which application was sent to the Building Department; and according to the schedule, the Sub-Engineer assessed the cost of the structure of shop as Rs.6,74,600/20

Same amount was claimed by the respondent as the compensation of the acquired shops in his objection petition and Referee determined said amount and Acquiring Authority challenged the same in appeal

Objection of appellant/ Authority that District Co-ordination Officer could not refer the application to the Building Department with the direction to make assessment of suit property, did not hold field

Instruction contained in the Plan also provided for the application of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of market value of the property acquired for the purposes laid down in the plan

Appellant Authority in its written statement, had neither expressly, controverted, nor asserted about the structure cost of the suit shops and had produced no evidence, in absence whereof the cost of structure as claimed by the respondent/owner as assessed by Sub-Engineer according to schedule, would be considered as the cost of structure

Referee Judge, in circumstances had legally and justly fixed the same as Rs.6, 74, 630/98.

2010 SCMR 431 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 1 & Sched.Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 2-A & Chap.I [Arts.8 to 28]Fundamental rightsScopeAcquisition of property

Bungalow in question was allotted to respondent but authorities retained possession on the basis of West Pakistan Acquisition of Property (Residence of Government Officials) Ordinance, 1963

Validity

No law could be made against provisions of Constitution and if any law was unreasonable and it offended any of Fundamental Rights, the same could be struck down

Keeping in view the principle laid down by Supreme Court and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution read with Art. 2-A of the Constitution, authorities had failed to give any valid or cogent reasons as to why West Pakistan Acquisition of Property (Residence of Government Officials) Ordinance, 1963, had been issued in respect of a specified property instead of proceedings, if the property was required for public interest under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to pay compensation at prevailing market rate to the owner of the property

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

2010 SCMR 431 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 1 & Sched.Acquisition of propertyEffect

Bungalow in question was allotted to respondent but authorities retained possession on the basis of West Pakistan. Acquisition of Property (Residence of Government Officials) Ordinance, 1963

Validity

Ordinance in question was for individual benefit and not for benefit of public at-large and as the same had taken away fundamental rights of citizen of country was unconstitutional and all acts done thereunder were void ab initio

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

2010 PLD 229 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

Acquisition of propertyAcquiring assets, interests, properties of others without lawful meansMandate

Modes of acquisition of property other than the accepted customary or legally permissible methods is termed as batil which is antonym of Haq i.e. truth

Thing which causes mischief would be batil.

2007 YLR 2666 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 2(c), 3, 4 & 17Civil Procedure Code {V of 1908), O. VII, R. 2Acquisition of propertySuit for recovery of amount of compensationProperty was acquired by Authority under West Punjab Damaged Areas (Development) Ordinance, 1948

Exemption of two plots was granted to predecessors-in-interest of respondents in lieu of proportionate share in acquired property

Possession of said two plots having not been given to respondents due to encroachment by some persons, respondents required the Authority for allotment of alternate commercial plots of the same market value

On account of non ­availability of .vacant plots, Authority decided that respondents would be accommodated in terms of compensation

Respondents filed. suit for recovery of Rs.100 Million towards price/compensation in exchange of property acquired

Trial Court; after evaluation of the evidence, decreed suit to the extent of 4 crores and assessed the market price at Rs.40, 00, 000 per marla

Validity

West Punjab Damaged Areas (Development) Ordinance, 1948 and Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act, 1952 had provided a complete procedure for acquisition of land

Trial Court had not returned its- findings on the issue which warranted a finding whether possession. of acquired property was ever taken over by the Authority

Statement of witnesses was not considered by the Trial Court, which had rendered the judgment a nullity in the eye of law

Trial Court awarded compensation on the basis of valuation table notified by, Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of recovery of Stamp Duty under Stamp Act

No effort was -made to determine the market values of land in dispute as obtaining in the year 1952

Reference of sale-deeds, did not furnish arty criteria in the absence of evidence about location and potential value of land subject matter of those sale-deeds

Impugned judgment and decree were set aside and. matter was remitted td the Trial Court for granting appropriate opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence and decide matter afresh on the basis of evidence already on the record and to be produced hereinafter by the parties .accordingly.

1999 PLD 1026 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Acquisition of Property CompensationDeterminationFactors to be considered

No person can be deprived of his property even under any Acquisition Law for public purpose without payment of compensation which should be based on the market rate and not at the rate fixed by the Authority which has acquired or which is instrumental in acquiring the property involved.

1970 PLD 514 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 5-Acquisition of property-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Granted to consider whether a right to acquire land accrued to Government on issuance of notices under S. 3 and as such market value was to be assessed in accordance with law as it stood on that date.