Pakistan Case Law
2023 SCP 349, 2024 SCMR 22

Province of Punjab thr. the Deputy Commissioner, Collector District

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2023 SCP 349, 2024 SCMR 22
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.386-L of 2021
Date2023-11-13
Judge(s)Amin-Ud-Din Khan, Athar Minallah, Qazi Faez Isa (C.J)
ResultPetition Dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Province of Punjab against the judgment of the High Court upholding the appellate court decision which favored the landowner whose nine marlas of land was utilized for constructing a road without acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or payment of compensation. The core legal question was whether the government could deprive a citizen of property without following due process of law and without paying compensation, while continuing frivolous litigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the government's action violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court laid down the principle that the government and its functionaries must act responsibly, respect constitutional property rights, avoid frivolous litigation that wastes public resources and court time, and pay requisite compensation alongside costs for unauthorized land deprivation.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the government construct a road on private land without acquiring it under the Land Acquisition Act or paying compensation?
  • Does the unauthorized deprivation of private land by the government violate the fundamental rights to acquire, hold, and dispose of property under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether the government can be burdened with costs for engaging in frivolous litigation against a landowner?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 1, Land Acquisition Act 1894
  • Article 23, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
  • Article 24, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
land acquisitioncompulsory acquisitionproperty rightsfundamental rightsfrivolous litigationcompensationcosts

Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. On nine marlas of land a road was constructed by petitioners. However, since no compensation was paid for the said land nor was it acquired pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act'), the owner filed a suit in the year 1997 and though the suit was dismissed the appeal against the same was allowed on 19 September 2009 and the judgment of the appellate court was upheld through the impugned judgment.

2. We inquired from the learned Additional Advocate General ('AAG') whether the land was compulsorily acquired under the Act, was gifted or an agreement was entered into with the owner of the land and the learned AAG answered in the negative. Nonetheless the petitioners have deemed it fit to assail the order of the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal has been signed by two AAGs, namely, Malik Abdul Aziz Awan and Mr. Asif Afzal Bhatti on 3 February 2021. The AOR was engaged by Mr. Bahadur Ali Khan, Secretary of the Government of the Punjab (Law & Parliamentary Affairs), Department.

3. This is a classic example of frivolous litigation, and that too by those whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers of the country. It appears that the ability to take a decision, whether to assail or not a decision does not exist in senior officers. They deemed it fit to challenge a matter of little financial significance and do so contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which guarantees as a fundamental right the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property (Articles 23 and 24), and being oblivious to the fact that a person can only be compulsorily deprived of property provided compensation therefor is paid.

4. This is the fourth Court before which the Government of Punjab is a party, and it pleads by disregarding the Constitution and the law. Not only have public resources been wasted, but also Court time, both of which are a trust held on behalf of the people. The respondents who were deprived of their land must have spent money and time with regard to a case which should have never seen a court of law, provided the petitioners had abided by the Constitution and the law.

Whilst counsel of private parties are accountable to them, and may resort to unnecessary litigation, this is not expected from the petitioners. The Government of Punjab and every employee of it, including those in the office of the Advocate-General run on public funds, therefore, one expects a much higher standard from them. The government and its servants are there to serve the people. In this case, land was taken without compensating the respondents. Therefore, whilst declining leave and dismissing this petition, we direct the Government of Punjab to pay to the owners of the land, requisite compensation, within a period of thirty days from the receipt of this order and in addition also pay to them one million rupees as costs. Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Punjab, and to the petitioners No.1 and 2 for information and compliance. Copy of this order be also sent to the respondents for information.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.