PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education, Lahore vs MAHMOOD
The Province of Punjab sought leave to appeal against a determination of fair compensation for requisitioned property, which had been upheld by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the compensation amount of Rs. 2,302 per mensem for a total built-up area of approximately 3,387 sq. ft. in Lahore. The Supreme Court examined the merits and found that the compensation awarded was, if anything, inadequate rather than excessive. The Court noted that even if the legal arguments regarding the 1956 Act were considered, the compensation for the area constructed post-1986 alone would likely exceed the amount currently challenged. Consequently, the Court held that there was no prospect of success for the petitioner and that granting leave to appeal would only burden the respondent, a widow, with further litigation. The Court dismissed the petitions, noting that the litigation should not have been initiated by the Government, and briefly remarked that the underlying statute might be vulnerable to challenge under the Constitution's fundamental rights provisions.
- Whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal when the compensation awarded for requisitioned property is arguably inadequate rather than excessive?
- Does the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, potentially conflict with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956
- Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---The Province of Punjab has sought leave to appeal; against determination by a learned District Judge, of fair compensation of requisitioned property which has also been upheld by the High Court. The amount fixed by the petitioner to be paid as compensation for a property the built up area of which at the time of requisitioning, 2,165 sq.Ft., was Rs,200 per mensem in 1977. Two rooms with covered area of 1,227-sq.Ft. Were built in 1986. Although there is a factual controversy as to who built it, the fact remains that same has also been taken into account for assessing fair compensation. The total area thus comes to more than 3,387 sq.Ft.
2. For which the compensation of Rs,2,302 per mensem was determined to be paid since 1986. The payment of meagre amount of Rs,200 per mensem to the respondent/widow till the end of 1985 has not been disturbed. Despite this somewhat unfair previous treatment to the respondent the petitioner for unexplainable reasons, has filed these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. ' When trying to discover reasons the learned counsel appearing for the Government took a firm stand that even though he would not have liked to file such petition the official concerned was sanguine about the need for filing these petitions. We are also surprised at the conduct of the official concerned.
4. With regard to the merits there are two aspects of the case. One, whether we should grant leave to appeal and burden the widow with further litigation in this Court; when the compensation of Rs,2,302 per mensem for a covered area of nearly 3,387 sq.Ft. In the City of Lahore is hardly adequate, vis-a-vis, the prevailing market rate of rents for such a vast build up area. Admittedly, there would be no scope for downward re-determination of the impugned compensation-- though there is considerable chance of its increase. The second aspect is of the law. The provisions enacted in 1956, prima facie, might give some support to the arguments of the learned counsel that the amount regarding the build up area constructed prior to 1977 when the property was requisitioned, may not be increased. But there will be nothing to prevent, the proper determination of area constructed (1,227 sq.Ft.) in or after 1986. Fair compensation of this area alone would be more than the compensation impugned in these proceedings. Thus, on these two considerations there would be absolutely no chance of ultimate success of the petitioner even if leave to appeal is granted; though there is serious possibility of the petitioner being burdened with heavy penal costs.
5. There is third aspect of the matter also. The provisions of West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 when tested upon the touchstone of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution might have to be struck down. While leaving this aspect at that remark only, we do not find any force in these petitions which should not have been filed by the Government and dismiss the same accordingly.
6. ' It may be remarked that the learned counsel while explaining his position in filing these petitions after the announcement of the order stated that he had carefully studied the case and the law of 1956 and had also studied the law prevailing in India which has since been rationalized. We are placing this statement of the learned counsel on record so as to afford him protection against any discriminatory future treatment as a lawyer by the petitioners functionaries.