BASHIR AHMAD AKHGAR Versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, SADIQABAD

ORDER

This order shall dispose of the four writ petitions, namely, W.P. No.837‑91/BWP filed by Bashir Ahmad Akhgar and another; W.P.No.838 91/BWP filed by Laiq Muhammad and 9 others; W.P.No.839‑91/BWP filed by Ghulam Qadir and 5 others; and W.P.No.840‑91/BWP filed by Ahmed Khan and 2 others, as in all these writ petitions the award, dated 3‑1‑1973, delivered by Collector, Land Acquisition, Sadiqabad, District Rahimyarkhan, respondent No.1, under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has been challenged.

2. Land measuring 1993 Acres 5 Kanals 18 Marlas situate in Chak Nos. 150/P,151/P, 152/P,153/P, 157/P,158/P and Mauza Bountra (different portions of ‑which were owned by the writ petitioners) was acquired for establishment of Cantonment at Sadiqabad vide impugned Award announced by respondent No.1 on 3‑1‑1973. All the owners of the land have received compensation of‑their lands in the shape of cash and alternate land and the land acquired has been taken over by the Army excepting 196 Acres 6 Kanals 13 Marlas belonging to Tariq Ismail Khan as the G.H.O. Rawalpindi, vide its letter No.3678/1974/Land Otg‑2(B), dated 6‑12‑1977, had withdrawn from its acquisition.

3. As no cantonment has so far been established on the land acquired, therefore, the writ petitioners, assuming that the scheme of establishing the cantonment has been abandoned, filed the instant writ petitions in July, 1991, praying that the Award whereby their lands had been acquired be declared to be without lawful authority and a direction be given to the respondents to release their lands. The Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, applied for becoming a party in these writ petitions which request was granted vide order, dated 14‑9‑1991, of this Court and the Ministry of Defence was arrayed as respondent No.3 in all these writ petitions.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed on record letter of Cantonment Executive Officer, Punnu Aqil Cantonment, dated 14‑5‑1992, informing that he has been instructed by the Ministry of Defence to inform this Court of their following stand:‑‑

"The land is not proposed to be abandoned and is being utilized as Military Dairy Farm for bringing up of animals to support the adjoining Cantonments. A Cantonment is proposed to be built on the acquired land which is required for defence purposes. Due to lack of resources and Budget constraints the development has pended."

5.Be that as it may, the impugned award was delivered on 3‑1‑1973 which was accepted by the petitioners so much so that they did not file any appeal or reference as provided under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They have rather received the compensation. The chapter of acquisition had been closed 19 years ago for all intents and purposes. I have, however, heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. He has failed to show that the impugned award suffered from any legal or factual infirmity. 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 have failed to show any provision of law where under 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 petitioner ought to approach the Government straightaway and the Government in its discretion may, if so wishes, return the land to them on the conditions it deems fit.

6. Above all the petitioners' objection that scheme of constructing cantonment has been abandoned seems to be misconceived because the Ministry of Defence, as mentioned above, has not abandoned its scheme, rather they have pended the matter, due to Budget constraints. Consequently, these petitions are absolutely misconceived and are thus hereby dismissed in limine.

A.A./B‑38/L Petitions dismissed.