Haji NAWAZISH ALI KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SAHIWAL And Another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition against the acquisition of the petitioner's land for a housing scheme. The petitioner argued that the acquisition was improper because non-proprietors, for whom the scheme was intended, had already constructed houses on other lands in the village, which should have been acquired instead. The petitioner relied on the proviso to Section 3 of the Punjab Housing Facilities for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Ordinance, 1974, claiming that the existing residential sites should have been prioritized for acquisition. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the existing houses were built on 'village Shamlat land' or 'land in Abadi Deh,' which are the specific statutory prerequisites for the proviso to apply. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case did not fall within the scope of the proviso and dismissed the petition. The Court noted, however, that the petitioner should be compensated with one-third of the acquired land as per the rules framed under the Punjab Acquisition of Housing Act, 1973.
- Does the proviso to Section 3 of the Punjab Housing Facilities for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Ordinance 1974 apply to all residential houses built by non-proprietors?
- Must land acquired for a housing scheme under the Punjab Acquisition of Housing Act 1973 meet specific criteria regarding the nature of the land to trigger the proviso in Section 3 of the 1974 Ordinance?
- Section 3, Punjab Housing Facilities for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Ordinance 1974
- Punjab Acquisition of Housing Act 1973
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 8-4-1977, dismissing his writ petition.
2. The writ petition arose from the facts that the Collector, Okara acquired 115 Kanals and 15 Marlas of land in Mauza Bamabala in Tehsil Okara, for carrying out "a housing scheme" prepared under the Punjab Housing Facilities for Non-Proprietors in Rural Areas Ordinance, 1974. The land acquired included 11 Acres and 6 Marlas belonging to the petitioner. He challenged the validity of the Collector's order through a writ petition in the High Court. It was, however, dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
He has now filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and gone through the impugned judgment. The main contention raised by the learned counsel was that most of the non- proprietors for whom the scheme was prepared have already built their residential houses on certain other lands in the area of the said village and that the land on which they have built their residences should have been acquired instead of petitioner's land. For this contention he relied on the proviso to section 3 of the aforementioned Ordinance which reads as follows:---- "3. Government may grant land free of cost, not exceeding 5 Marlas in area, on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit, to every non-proprietor family living in a rural area at the the of the commencement of this Ordinance in the revenue estate in which such family is living for the the being for the purpose of residence: Provided that village Shamlat land or land in Abadi Deh whereupon a non-proprietor family has built a house on or before 20th December, 1973, with a view to taking up permanent residence, may after acquisition be granted free of cost to the said family irrespective of the limit of 5 Marlas------ ------------...--- On being questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, could not show that the residential houses referred to above by him had been built by the non-proprietors on village Shamlat land or land in Abadi Deh. As such the case is obviously not covered by the aforementioned proviso. The contention raised by the counsel thus fails. Consequently the petition is dismissed.
4. It may, however, be mentioned that since the land for this scheme was acquired under the Punjab Acquisition of Housing Act, 1973, it is hoped that the petitioner shall be given 1/3rd of the land acquired in accordance with the rules subsequently framed by the Government under the said Act.