PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others vs MUNSHI KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of the Punjab against a decision requiring compensation for land acquired for road construction. The petitioner-Government argued that the respondent landowner was not entitled to compensation because the road construction would benefit the landowners themselves. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the road was intended for the benefit of the public at large, not merely the respondent. The Court characterized the government's attempt to deny compensation as an unfair practice, metaphorically described as 'robbing Peter to pay Paul,' as it unfairly placed the entire financial burden of public infrastructure on a single individual. Finding that the matter had been consistently decided against the government by three lower courts, including the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as frivolous, imposed costs throughout, and refused leave to appeal. The judgment reinforces the principle that the state cannot arbitrarily deprive citizens of compensation for land acquisition when the project serves a broader public purpose.
- Is a landowner entitled to compensation for land acquired for a road project intended for public benefit?
- Can the government deny compensation for land acquisition on the grounds that the landowner will benefit from the project?
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The only submission being made by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner-Government and others is that it had been decided by the then Chief Minister that since the landowners through whose land the road in question was to pass were to be the beneficiaries of the construction of the said road, therefore, such landowners would not be allowed any compensation for their land which was taken over for the said purpose.
2. This is what is called robbing Peter to pay Paul as the learned Advocate Supreme Court admits that this road had not been constructed for the benefit of the respondent alone and that it was the public-at-large who were to be benefited from the same. If this be so, then it is not understandable as to why the poor respondent be asked to take the entire burden.
3. The matter stands concluded by the consistent findings of the three learned Courts including the Honourable High Court and this petition which has been filed by the petitioner-Government and its functionaries is a frivolous petition which is dismissed with costs throughout. Leave refused.