PAKISTAN Through Military Estate Officer vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MIANWALI And Another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the payment of rent for land occupied by the Defence Department. The core legal question concerned the obligation of the petitioner to pay rent for land temporarily occupied under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the sanctioned period had expired. The facts established that the Defence Department had taken possession of land in Mianwali for a three-year period under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but failed to pay rent as required by Section 35(2). The Land Acquisition Collector had determined the rent, and the Land Acquisition Judge upheld this determination. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the lower courts' decisions, noting that the petitioner remained in possession without payment. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petition was time-barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that the state cannot occupy private land without complying with the statutory requirement to pay compensation or rent as determined by the relevant authorities.
- Is the government liable to pay rent for land temporarily occupied under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can a petition be dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred?
- Does the failure to initiate formal acquisition proceedings absolve the government from paying rent for temporary possession of land?
- Section 35, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 35(2), Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act 1894
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1-11-1989 of the Lahore High Court whereby its appeal was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, accorded temporary sanction vide his order No. L-351-415/4040/Rev., dated 13-12-1972 for temporary occupation of land measuring 44 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in Village Wettakhel Pacca, Tehsil and District Mianwali, for a period of three years required by the Defence Department under section 35 of Land Acquisition Act. The period of temporary occupation expired in January, 1976. The rent was neither fixed nor paid to the' land owners concerned under subsection (2) of section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector, Mianwali Sub-Division determined the rent at the rate of Rs.70 per kanal per month under section 35(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner was directed to pay the amount. As the petitioner failed to pay the amount, a reference under section 18 read with section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Award was made to the Land Acquisition Judge who vide judgment dated 3-2-1985 dismissed the same. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed.
4. The learned Deputy Attorney-General has submitted that the Government has not so far initiated any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of land. He admitted that the possession of the land is still with the petitioner but no rent has so far been paid. He has not been able to support the case of the petitioner on any legal plane. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner had taken possession of the land without paying any rent to the respondent.
The petition is also barred by time.