LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) against a High Court order that dismissed its writ petition in limine. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, where the LDA challenged the entitlement of subsequent purchasers to compensation after a notification had been issued. The core legal question was whether the LDA could challenge the compensation rights of purchasers who acquired the land after the notification, particularly when the LDA had failed to challenge a prior civil court decree and a Commissioner's order that had already become final against it. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the LDA had allowed the civil court decree and the Commissioner's order to attain finality, it lacked any legal standing to reopen the matter. The Court declined to interpret the relevant statutory provision, noting that the case was not an appropriate vehicle for such an exercise given the procedural history and the finality of the earlier decisions.
- Can a statutory authority challenge a compensation award after failing to appeal a final civil court decree on the same matter?
- Does a party have standing to challenge a compensation claim when it has allowed the underlying administrative and judicial orders to attain finality?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner has failed to challenge the final judgment of a civil court regarding the same subject matter?
- Section 13, Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ The Lahore Development Authority seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 16‑1‑1982.
2. The facts of the case are that Mst. Zahida Parveen and Mst. Tasneem (contesting respondents 3‑4) executed an agreement for the purchase of one Kanal of land from Mukhtar Begum. In the meantime a housing scheme known as Bund Road Scheme was promulgated by the Lahore Development Authority and was duly notified. Subsequently, a Notification under section 13 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 was published in the Gazette of 13‑12‑1976. In pursuance of the said Notification it took possession of the land falling in the Scheme two days later i.e. on 17/18‑12‑1976. The sale‑deeds between the contesting respondents and Mukhtar Begum were executed on 12/13‑10‑1977 respectively and the award was announced on 30‑9‑197si. The names of the two contesting respondents did not appear in the said Award. They, therefore, filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who remanded the case to the Land Acquisition Collector, L.D.A. for reconsideration of the matter. On remand the Land Acquisition Collector. L.D.A. accepted the appeal and consequently two plots bearing Nos. 389 and 390 were allocated in the Scheme in favour of the contesting respondents. Subsequently,, however, the Lahore Development Authority charged its mind and chose to file a review petition before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, against the remand order. This was rejected by the Commissioner on 28‑2‑1981. Even then the Lahore Development Authority did not deliver possession of the plot; to the contesting respondents. They (the contesting respondents), were, therefore, constrained to file a civil suit against the petitioner (Lahore Development Authority) for being compensated in lieu of their land. The suit was duly contested by the petitioner, but it was ultimately decreed in favour of the contesting respondents vide judgment and decree, dated 11‑11‑1981. The petitioner (L.D.A. ) did not challenge this decree and judgment of the civil Court which, therefore, became final., It, however, filed a belated writ petition inter alia, against the order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, rejecting their review petition against the remand order. The writ petition was ultimately di:;1uissed in limine by the high Court vide the; impugned judgment. dated 16‑1‑‑198.
Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. The only contention raised by him is that it is Mukhtar Begum, who could claim to the compensation and not the contesting respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who had purchased the land from her after the date of the Notification. It is, however, admitted that Mukthar Begum has not come forward to make any such claim. Moreover, as is evident from the facts stated above, the order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, as well as the judgment and decree of the civil Court have become final against the petitioner (L.D.A.). The Authority has, therefore, no legs to stand on.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted next date that the matter needed interpretation of section 13 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. Keeping in mind that the facts of this case as stated above, we do not consider it a fit case for this purpose and the said section can be interpreted in some other appropriate case.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M . I . / 4417 / S Petition dismissed.