PLJ 2010
[
Present: Asad Munir, J.
RAHM DAD and 7 others--Petitioners
versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR FAUJI FOUNDATION,
C.R.No. 424 of 2006, decided on
13.4.2010.
----R. 14(1)--General Clauses Act, 1897,
Ss. 3(21) & 3(28)--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Civil
revision--Acquisition of land--Fauji Foundation, a charitable trust--Fauji
Foundation vide conveyance deed sold and transferred the Textile Mills--Suit
for possession of land was filed by petitioner--Textile Mills had abandoned the
purpose for which land was acquired as the land was being split into
residential plots--Purpose of land had been abandoned--Original owner--Suit was
dismissed by Courts below--Challenge to--Applicable of Rule 4(1) where land had
been acquired for any department of Govt. or local authority for a public
purpose--Validity--Land in-question was acquired for Punjab Post-War Service
Reconstruction Fund, which later became Fauji Foundation--Both Foundations were
charitable trusts formed under Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, which do not
fall within definition of Government or a local authority as given in Ss. 3(21)
& 3(28) of General Clauses Act--Held: Petitioners cannot take the benefit
of Rule 14 as it applies only where the land had been acquired by Govt. or
local authority and it cannot extend to an acquisition of the land in favour of
a company or other legal entity of a similar nature--Civil revision was
dismissed. [P. 501] A
----R. 14--Acquired land was utilized for
more than 30 years for public purpose and then it was transferred to a company
which was said to be utilizing it for purpose other than public
purpose--Applicable of Rule 14 of Rules 1983--Validity--Rule 14 would apply if
the land was never used for the public purpose for which it was acquired, but
would not apply where the public purpose was abandoned after the land had been
used for declared public purpose for a considerable period of time--Revision
was dismissed. [Pp. 501 &
502] B
2006 CLC 1, ref.
----R. 14--Acquisition of land for the
purpose of Trust--Acquired land was transferred to textile mills--Purpose of
land had been abandoned--Claim being original owner of land--Applicable of
Rules 14 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules--Rule 14 even when it is applicable
does not provide for return of land to the original owners or their heirs but
leaves it to the Govt. which might in its discretion return it to the original
owners. [P. 502] C
1992 MLD 2364, ref.
----R. 14--Land was acquired for
trust--Acquired land was transferred to textile mills--Purpose of acquisition
of land had been abandoned--As of right for return of land due to non-use of it
for purpose it was acquired--Grievance of--Validity--Government in its
discretion might return the land to its owners if it has abandoned the scheme
for which it had been acquired but for that matter the petitioner ought to
approach the Government straightaway and Govt. in its discretion may, if so
wishes return the land to them on the condition it deems fit--Held: Petitioners
were not entitled to the return of land acquired were in accordance with law
and cannot be called into question on any ground--Revision was dismissed. [P. 502] D & E
PLJ 2010 Lah. 49 & PLD 11993 SC
453, rel.
Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Kiyani, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 13.4.2010.
Order
The necessary facts as they emerge from a
reading of this civil revision petition are that vide notified award dated
October 24, 1952, land measuring 85 kanals 10 Marlas in the revenue estates of
Gujarpur and Kala, Tehsil & District, Jhelum, was acquired for Fauji
Textile Mills, Kala. The said acquisition was pursuant to an agreement dated October
24, 1952, between the Governor of Punjab, and the Treasurer, Charitable
Endowments, Punjab, acting for and on behalf of the Punjab Postwar Services
Reconstruction Fund,
2.
Now, by means of this civil revision, the petitioners assail the
judgments and decrees dated 21.4.2001 and 6.5.2006 passed by the Civil Judge,
Jhelum and Additional District Judge, Jhelum, respectively.
3.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
judgments of the Courts below have over-looked Rule 14 which clearly lays down that if the purpose for which the land is acquired
is abandoned, the land must be returned to the original owners or their legal
heirs. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on Rana
Ziladar Khan Vs. Province of Punjab through Collector
Sialkot and others (PLJ 2010
14. (1) Where
any land has been acquired for any Department of the Government or a local
authority for a public purpose and it is proposed to abandon the same, it shall
be handed over to the Collector who shall be responsible for the disposal of
the same in accordance with the order of Govt.
(2) The disposal of land under sub-rule
(1) shall be made by Government in its discretion, and its possession restored
to the persons from whom it was acquired or to their heirs as under:--
(i) Free of cost to the original owners
or their heirs, if compensation for acquisition of land has not been paid.
(ii) On
refunding the amount paid as compensation less than 15 percent granted for
compulsory acquisition, if the original landowners or their heirs have already
received cash compensation in respect of their land. The price may be lowered,
if necessary, on account of deterioration, or enhanced in the rare case of land
having been improved by the use to which Government has put it.
(3) Where the original land-owners or
their heirs where provided alternate land in lieu of their acquired land, such
land shall not be restored to them but shall be utilized or disposed of by the
Board of Revenue in accordance with the policy of the Government regarding
disposal and alienation of lands."
4.
From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule 14(1), it is clear that Rule 14 has
relevance and applies only where the land has been acquired for any department
of the Government or a local authority for a public purpose. In the present
case, the land in question was acquired for Punjab Post-War Services
Reconstruction Fund,
5.
Even otherwise, it is doubtful that the Rule 14 remains applicable if
the land is utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired for
sometime and then the purpose is abandoned. In the present case, the land was
acquired in 1952 whereafter it was utilized for more than 30 years for the
public purpose and then it was transferred to a company, which is said to be
utilizing it for a purpose other than public purpose. In my
view, Rule 14 would apply if the land is never used for
the public purpose for which it is acquired, but will not apply where the
public purpose is abandoned after the land has been used for the declared
public purpose for a considerable period of time. In this regard, reference may
be made to Rana Abdul Qadir etc. vs. Government of Pakistan, M/o Defence
Production Division through Secretary Defence, Rawalpindi etc. (2006 CLC 01),
wherein it was observed "that distinction need to be kept in view in the
case of withdrawal from acquisition and where the acquisition is complete in
all respects but the erstwhile landowner seek return of the land.
6.
In Rana Ziladar Khan Vs. Province of Punjab through Collector Sialkot
and others, referred to by the learned counsel, the land was acquired by the
Punjab Government to establish a colony but the scheme was abolished and the
possession of the land also remained with the land owners. As such, neither the
acquisition was complete nor was the land ever used for the public purpose for
which it was acquired. Similarly, in Province of Punjab through Collector and
others vs. Saeed Ahmad & another, supra, the land whose return was sought
had been acquired by the Punjab Government for a building a highway. Both these
cases relied upon by the learned counsel are thus distinguishable as the land
sought to be returned was acquired for the Government which is not so in the
instant case.
7.
In any case, Rule 14 even when it is applicable does not provide for
return of the land to the original owners or their heirs but leaves it to the
Government which may in its discretion return it to the said owners. I may
refer to Bashir Ahmad Akhtar and others Vs. Collector, Land Acquisition and
others 1992 MLD 2364 wherein it was observed that;
"The only grievance of the
petitioners is that since the purpose of constructing cantonment on the
acquired land has been abandoned, and that the purpose of acquisition having
not been fulfilled their land should be returned to them. Learned counsel has
failed to show any provision of law whereunder the petitioners are entitled, as
of right, for return of their land due to non-use of it for the purpose it was
acquired. In Rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, it is stated
that the Government in its discretion may return the land to its owners if it
has abandoned the scheme for which it had been acquired but for that matter the
petitioners ought to approach the Government straightaway and the Government in
its discretion may, if so wishes, return the land to them on the condition it
deems fit."
8.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgments & decrees of the
Courts below that the petitioners are not entitled to the return of land
acquired in 1952 are in accordance with law and cannot be called into question
on any ground. Accordingly, this civil revision, having no merit, is dismissed
in limine.
(R.A.) Revision
dismissed.