Province Of Punjab Through Secretary, Settlement Board Of Revenue
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings by the Province of Punjab. The core legal question concerned the validity of withdrawing an acquisition after possession of the land had been taken and a highway constructed. The Court observed that the acquiring agency had already paid the assessed compensation to the landowners, the award of the Land Acquisition Collector had not been challenged, and criminal and departmental proceedings against the involved officials had effectively concluded without findings of delinquency. Crucially, the Court noted that Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 prohibits the withdrawal of acquisition once possession of the land has been taken. Furthermore, the physical reality of the constructed highway rendered the restoration of the land to its original owners impossible. Consequently, the Advocate General elected not to press the petition. The Court accepted this position, holding that the withdrawal was legally untenable under the circumstances, and disposed of the petition as not pressed.
- Does Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 permit the withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings after possession of the land has been taken?
- Can land acquisition be withdrawn when the land has already been utilized for public infrastructure such as a highway?
- Section 48, Land Acquisition Act 1894
ORDER
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.-- Having argued the matter at some length and on being confronted with the fact that the acquiring agency was not only, ready and willing to make the assessed payment but had in fact deposited the amount in question which had since been paid to respondents land owners; the fact that no one including the petitioners or even the acquiring agency had challenged the award of the L.A.C.; the fact that in the criminal case which was got registered against the allegedly delinquent officials, the accused persons had been exonerated; the fact that even the departmental proceedings allegedly initiated against the concerned revenue officials stood almost abandoned; the fact that Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act did not permit withdrawal of acquisition after possession had been taken over and the fact that pursuant to the impugned withdrawal of acquisition the acquiring agency could not restore the land in question to its original owners as a highway already stood constructed there, the learned Advocate General elected not to press this petition and justifiably so.
2. In view of the above prayer made by the learned Advocate-General, this petition is disposed of as not pressed. ,