Public Purpose
Public Purpose legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Company, having already established factory by acquiring land, sought additional land from private land owners in order to enhance its production capacity by extending its area
Company invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being aggrieved of rejection of acquisition by Respondents (Board of Revenue-Settlement and all relevant departments)
Contention of the petitioner/company was that acquisition of land for a company was not necessarily required to be for the public purpose as the same might be for construction of a work that was likely to prove useful to the public
Objection of respondents was that even for industrial purpose acquisition of land could be allowed only when it served public purpose while the request of the petitioner/company for acquisition of land was merely for commercial purpose as was manifest from their application
Validity
Article 8(1) of the Constitution postulates that any law or any custom or usage having the force of law, insofar as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void
Article 23 of the Constitution grants every citizen the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property within Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest
Article 24 of the Constitution guarantees/embodies protection of property rights, which inter alia postulates that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law
Sub-Article (2) of Art. 24 of the Constitution further restricts acquisition or taking possession of any property except for public purpose only and that too by the authority of law which provides for compensation therefor
Sub-Article (3) of Art. 24 of the Constitution contains specified exceptions to the general rules articulated in the first two provisions of Art. 24 of the Constitution, whereby validity of any law permitting compulsory acquisition or taking possession of any property has been made immune from challenge for certain purposes specified therein
Inasmuch as the exceptions specified in sub-Article (3) of Art. 24 of the Constitution limit the protection of fundamental right to property guaranteed under sub-Article (1), therefore, the same are to be construed narrowly and there is no room for reading into the said Article anything that abridges or undermines the protection of property rights
Thus, the principle of harmonious construction of the provisions of Art. 24 of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that protection of property rights guaranteed under Art. 24 of the Constitution is only abridged or taken away for compulsory acquisition or taking possession of it under any law for any public purpose or such other purpose as have been clearly specified in Art. 24(3) of the Constitution
No provision of Art. 24 of the Constitution permits compulsory acquisition or taking possession of any property by or under any law merely because the same is required for a company for its commercial purposes
Petitioner/Company failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, any violation of acquisition laws or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the respondents regretting petitioner's request for acquisition of land owned by private owners
Constitutional petition, filed by company/factory, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Company, having already established factory by acquiring land, sought additional land from private land owners in order to enhance its production capacity by extending of its area
Company invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being aggrieved of rejection of acquisition by Respondents (Board of Revenue-Settlement and all relevant departments)
Contention of the petitioner/company was that acquisition of land for the company was not necessarily required to be for the public purpose as the same might be for construction of a work that is likely to prove useful to the public
Objection of Respondents is that even for industrial purpose acquisition of land could be allowed only when it served public purpose while the request of the petitioner/company for acquisition of land was merely for commercial purpose as was manifest from their application
Validity
In the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act 1894'), land can be acquired either for public purpose or for a Company
A literal construction of the provisions of the Act 1894 appears to be in conflict with Art. 24 of the Constitution insofar as those apparently permit acquisition of property by a Company even in the absence of any public purpose or such other purposes as have been specified in the exceptions stipulated in Art. 24(3) of the Constitution
A statutory provision, when read literally, leads to any violation of a fundamental right, or renders it without legislative competence
Court read such a provision narrowly to save it from invalidity
This is a rule of interpretation of statutes termed as "reading down"
The rule of "reading down", when applied to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would permit acquisition of property only for public purpose or any other purpose specified in sub-Article (3) of Art. 24 of the Constitution
Petitioner/Company failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, any violation of acquisition laws or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the Respondents regretting petitioner's request for acquisition of land owned by private owners
Constitutional petition, filed by company/factory, being merit-less, was dismissed.
Company, having already established factory by acquiring land, sought additional land from private land owners in order to enhance its production capacity by extending its area
Company invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being aggrieved of rejection of acquisition by respondents (Board of Revenue-Settlement and all relevant departments)
Contention of the petitioner/company was that acquisition of land for a company was not necessarily required to be for the public purpose as the same might be for construction of a work that was likely to prove useful to the public
Objection of respondents was that even for industrial purpose acquisition of land could be allowed only when it served public purpose while the request of the petitioner/company for acquisition of land was merely for commercial purpose as was manifest from their application
Validity
"Company" has been defined in S. 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which means a Company having been registered/ incorporated under prevalent law and includes a society registered under the prevalent law (i.e. Societies Registration Act, 1860 or Cooperative Societies Act, 1912)
In the present case, the request of the petitioner/Company for acquisition of land was merely for commercial purpose as was manifest from their own relevant application
The proposed expansion of the Company's factory aims to increase production of Soda Ash and Sodium Bicarbonate, which is essentially a commercial purpose
Article 24(2) of the Constitution erects a formidable barrier against the Government's use of authority for advancing private commercial interests
Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property, emphasizes that any restriction on this right must be reasonable and in the public interest
Compelling landowners to relinquish their property for a private company's commercial gain, without a direct public utility, failed this test
Acquisition of private land for a purpose other than public purpose is not legal
Requisition and acquisition for purpose of private business concern and not for public purpose or in public interest is illegal
Petitioner/Company failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, any violation of acquisition laws or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the respondents regretting petitioner's request for acquisition of land owned by private owners
Constitutional petition, filed by company/factory, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Meaning.
Any alleged agreement or instrument which postulates that a person claiming compensation/ acquisition of the landed property has already waived or abandoned the rights bears no weight
High Court directed the respondents/acquiring agency to do needful qua redressal of the grievance of the petitioner regarding his landed-property which was in use of the respondents; if the landed property was in fact, required for the public purpose then initiate the acquisition proceedings and ultimately the petitioner be compensated within 02 months: otherwise, if public purpose was lacking or the land was no more required, then the petitioner was entitled to get back possession of his land
Writ petition , filed by land-owner , was disposed of accordingly.
Respondents (Acquiring Agency), in its reply straightforwardly admitted the claim of the petitioner and anything admitted need not to be proved
High Court directed the respondents /acquiring agency to do needful qua redressal of the grievance of the petitioner regarding his landed-property which was in use of the respondents; if the landed property was, in fact, required for the public purpose then initiate the acquisition proceedings and ultimately the petitioner be compensated within 02 months, if public purpose was lacking or the land was no more required, then the petitioner is entitled to get back possession of the said land
Writ petition, filed by land-owner, was disposed of accordingly.
Right of property is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right, which cannot be snatched in arbitrary and unlawful manner as enshrined in Art.4(4)(14) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974
Rights of individual are always to yield in favour of rights of public-at-large but simultaneously nobody can be deprived from his constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights without adopting the due process of law
Compensation has to be paid as per scheme of law in light of the property which is likely to be acquired or required for the public purpose, otherwise any sort of claim or taking possession of landed property of any citizen/ state subject, without adopting due procedure, is unlawful
High Court directed the respondents, jointly and severally , to do the needful qua redressal of the grievance of the petitioner regarding his landed-property which was in use of the respondents; if the landed property was in fact, required for the public purpose then initiate the acquisition proceedings and ultimately the petitioner be compensated within 02 months; if public purpose was lacking or the land was no more required, then the petitioner was entitled to get back possession of his land
Writ petition , filed by land-owner , was disposed of accordingly.
"Public purpose" included any purpose wherein even a fraction of the community may be interested or by which it may be benefited.
Acquisition of land for residence of Government servants/ housing society was a "public purpose".
Petitioners' Societies, through present petitions, challenged notifications issued under Ss. 4, 6 & 17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by respondent-Lahore Development Authority for its residential housing scheme
Contention raised by petitioners was that they, being registered Co-operative Societies, had already acquired subject land and entered into agreement of acquisition for accommodating their members
Validity
For determining 'public purpose', which was basic and necessary ingredient for acquiring any land, it would be seen as to whether members of petitioners Societies would fall within definition of 'public' or only contributors to LDA scheme would be considered as members of public
In view of categories of members of petitioners Societies, such members could not have been ousted from consideration to be members of a class of public
Land, already having been arranged for residential purposes, could not be taken back to the disadvantage of such needy people to accommodate members of LDA scheme, who were better placed than members of petitioners Societies
Term 'purpose' would be applicable to both classes: members of petitioners Societies and contributor to LDA scheme
High Court observed that when suit land had already been held by petitioners Societies for paramount public purpose, then issuance of notice under S. 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not warranted
Once petitioners' Societies had accommodated their members for purpose of extending residential accommodation to them, they could not be deprived from such benefit simply in order to accommodate members of LDA scheme, which was not intention of law of acquisition
In schemes under petitioners Societies, development process was completed, allotments had been made, and even some members had also constructed theirs houses
Members of petitioners Societies were protected and to be dealt with under Co-operative Societies Act, 1925
Acquiring agency or Collector would have no competence to acquire shares of members of Co-operative Societies
Members of Co-operative Societies were purchasers of shares of Societies and their shares could not, in any way, be subject matter of land acquisition proceedings
High Court setting aside impugned notifications issued by respondent-LDA for acquiring suit properties, quashed acquisition proceedings
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Contention of land owner that WAPDA was a company, as defined by S. 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore compulsory acquisition charges were payable at the rate of 25%, instead of 15%
Validity
Purpose for which the land was acquired, was the determining factor for ascertaining compulsory acquisition charges
If the purpose, as in the present case, was public in nature, then compulsory acquisition charges would be payable at the rate of 15%, even if, such acquisition was for a company
However, when the land was acquired simpliciter for a company for its private use only then the compulsory acquisition charges would be payable at the rate of 25%
Land-owner, in the present case, was entitled to compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15% only
Appeal was partly allowed accordingly.
Complete feasibility report was submitted to the Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) which was expansion of existing plant, installation of fresh plant and coal power plant for generation of electricity
Previous inquiry was conducted and plan was submitted before the Industries Department which was for "public purpose"
Agreement was entered by the company with the Government and same was notified and published in the official gazette
Provincial Government had prerogative to determine the "public purpose"
Rights of land owners were protected and Government could resume back the land from the company if same was not acquired for the purpose for which land was being acquired
When Commissioner had agreed with the reasons given in the inquiry then there was no further requirement for him to give reasons for agreeing with such inquiry
Reasons would have been necessary in case of disagreement with the findings of inquiry
Commissioner was not bound to pass a detailed order agreeing with the inquiry report
No defect was found in conducting the acquisition proceedings
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Article 24 of the Constitution empowered Government to acquire any suitable land for "public purpose" subject to law with such regard
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 conferred jurisdiction on revenue officer to acquire any land for public purpose and for companies subject to payment of compensation with compulsory acquisition charges in addition to various kinds of interests.
Contention of petitioners, inhabitants of the area, was that said land was previously notified for acquisition, but same was denotified
Validity
Publication of notification was a preliminary step to acquire land proposed by the concerned government department
Notification issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 might not be declared void or same could not be directed to be withdrawn at initial stage
Government had to decide whether the proposed land be acquired and if satisfied in such regard then a declaration would be made
On such declaration notification would be published and thereafter acquiring official had to take order of acquisition from the concerned Government
Notices in such regard would be served on effected persons who would have their rights to raise objections and after inquiry the acquiring agency had to pass an award
Person not satisfied from the compensation might prefer objection which would be referred to court as a reference
Interested person had right of appeal against the judgment of Referee Court before the High Court and might also approach the Supreme Court if remained unsatisfied
Government might withdraw from the acquisition of land of which possession had not been taken
Collector should determine the amount of compensation in consequences of the notice or of any proceeding
Collector should pay such amount to the person interested together with cost incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings to the said land
Petitioners if considered themselves to have suffered any loss or damage by withdrawal of subsequent notification might seek their relief
Withdrawal of earlier notification did not entitle petitioner to challenge the impugned notification on the ground that previously such another notification of same kind was withdrawn
No restriction could be placed on the power of Collector to issue notification, powers having been conferred on such official under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Department having issued fresh notification, the petitioner had the right to file objection
Authorities had not declared to take possession of the land and had not passed an award
High Court refused to intervene at preliminary stage of the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as petitioner had appropriate and adequate remedy before the competent forum
Construction of houses for general public including civil servants was a public purpose
Petitioner was at liberty to prove before the competent authority that the purpose for which the land was proposed to be acquired was against the tenets of Islam
Questions raised by the petitioners would be decided by the Collector Land Acquisition as he was the person well-acquainted with the ground realities and proposed purpose of Govern-ment
Collector Land Acquisition had the jurisdiction to decide whether monitory compensation was not an appropriate redressal of the petitioner's grievance
Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, comprehensively regulated issues relating to acquisition of land for public purpose, including the manner and mode of the classification and fixing the area of land to be acquired; the determination of compensation for the said land; the appointment and payment of the compensation so determined; the objection of 'persons interested" on the said determination in the award; and finally the mode and manner of resolution of all the disputes thereof that arose between the parties, or deemed appropriate or necessary by the Collector
General scheme envisaged in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be best categorized into four stages; viz. request is made for acquiring property for public purpose, and a notification in that regard is made to the public; Collector determines the class and area to be acquired, the compensation to be made and the apportionment and payment of the said compensation for the said proposed acquired property; all "persons interested" who had an objection upon the terms determined in the Award, file their objections to the Collector, who in turn refers the same to the Referee Court and the reference so filed by the Collector is to be decided by the Referee Court.
Public purpose depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, as per the need of the communal.
Petitioner assailed diverting of road from previous position to new position and sought that land of respondents be not acquired for construction of road on new position
Validity
Declaration of public purpose could not be challenged in court, which was conclusive
Whether a purpose amounted to public purpose, entirely rested on the decision of government and its satisfaction to that effect
Such decision was not questionable, except on the ground that same was mala fide; was fraud on the statute and was an outcome of colourable exercise of power
Concern of an individual could not be paramount to the interest of general public and therefore, interest of general public should reign over the interest of an individual
Land in question was acquired for public purpose and that germane notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued when the petition was still pending, to which no objections were preferred by petitioner
Notification issued under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would take its own course and the petition had lost its efficacy on such ground
Petitioner expressed his grievance to the extent of diversion of highway from originally envisaged position and therefore, it could not be allowed and land of petitioner be not acquired
Design of highway had already been changed for public purpose and their interest to which petitioner could not point out any mala fide or abuse of process of law on the part of public functionaries
High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, declined to interfere in the decision taken by authorities with regard to construction of highway
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
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.
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.
Laying of Housing Scheme by Housing Society for utility/use of public-at-large as compared to some individual; would be a "public purpose" within meaning of S.4 of Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973
Requirements of law were sufficiently met after having published such notification in official Gazette and affixed its copies at conspicuous place at land acquired
Collector had already announced award and taken possession of land, which vested in Housing Society absolutely
No case made out for interference in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Public purpose evident-Means for executing project is for lawgiver and it is for law-giver alone to determine as to how public may better be served as through an agency of private enterprise or department of Government-Not open to court to give its own opinion on matter of which law-giver is the sole Judge.
S. 3-Public purpose-Test: whether direct benefit accrues to public or to individual-Construction of Cinema Hall by private individual-Mere user of Hall by public does not justify, requisitioning of land for purpose.
"Public Purpose", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3355
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Public Purpose"
2015 M L D 1014
Mrs. SALMA MUAZZAM — Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General and 30 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1983 Karachi 602
MULLAH GHULAM- ALI AND 3 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents
Court: S. 3 (f )-Word "public purpose"-Cannot be defined strictly as same is liable to change from time to time, from place to place and matter to matter-Definition has to be used in an elastic sense so that it may satisfy changing facts, circumstances, and requirements of society and needs of public.-Words and phrases.P L D 1956 Supreme Court (India) 138
THE STATE OF BOMBAY‑Appellant Versus ALI GULSHAN‑Respondent
Court:2012 C L C 101
MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Communication, Islamabad and 4 others — Respondents
Court: SindhP L D 2017 Lahore 442
Messrs EDEN DEVELOPERS (PVT.) LIMITED — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2025 Y L R 158
Ghulam Rabani Butt — Petitioner Versus Managing Director Hydral Power Electric Board, Muzaffarabad and 3 others — Respondents
Court: High Court (AJ&K)2025 Y L R 2516
Hafeeza Begum and others — Petitioners Versus Government of Punjab through Secretary Higher Education Department and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2002 S C M R 1652
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1976 Lahore 747
AND 7 oTHERs‑ Petitioners Versus THE COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI DIVISION
Court: ‑‑ Preamble and Ss. 4, 5‑A & 6‑‑"Public purpose"‑Land of people can be acquired by State for "public purpose" only‑Act does not envisage taking of land of one to be given to other‑.Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 23 & 24.‑Words and phrases.2010 Y L R 1161
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and 8 others — Petitioners Versus MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MULTAN through Director-General, Multan and 7 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore