QUDRAT ULLAH and 4 others vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN through Collector, Lyallpur and 4 others

1. ' I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.762 and 823 of 1970 having commonality of law and facts, viz., Commissioner, Multan Division intending to acquire the within mentioned land for the setting up of a Grid Station, on 2-7-1958 issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) followed with a notification under section 6 of the Act, a decade later on 9-11-1968 without adhering to the requirement of section 5 of the Act; which was assailed in these proceedings making instructions of the Government of West Pakistan Revenue Department envisaged in Memo. No, 2364-68/1533-LA (IV) dated 15-6-1968 as the sheet anchor, whereby all the Divisional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners have been directed to ensure that if no action is taken by the acquiring department or agency within one year of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act it should be withdrawn and the department/agency concerned informed accordingly which was admitted to regular hearing and pending adjudication an injunctive order in the nature of status quo was issued. During the course of final hearing whereof, reiterating the contention learned counsel submitted that since the notification under section 4 of the Act didn't succeed by a notification under sections 5 and 6 of the Act within a period of one year prescribed by the instructions referred to supra, therefore, it ceased to be operative and stood divested of any legal efficacy. It was further argued that by virtue of rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 which being procedural law is applicable to the present case as well, text whereof for the sake of convenience of reference is reproduced herein below: "Where the land is to be acquired for a public purpose the Commissioner shall issue a Notification under section 5 of the Act not later than one year from the date of the publication of the Notification under section 4. If no Notification is issued under section 5 within the period specified in this rule, the Commissioner shall immediately report the matter to the Board of Revenue for extension in time and the Board of Revenue may, in its discretion, extend the time for the issue of a Notification under section 5, which shall not be more than sixty days. If the Board fails to issue a Notification under section 5 within the extended period, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have come to an end. However, any time spent in the prosecution of a judicial remedy shall stand excluded from the period of litigation." with the efflux of time the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have come to an end; supporting the contention, reliance-was placed an Nazar-ul-Hussain v. Collector, Lakore PLD 1990 Lah. 472, which remained uncontroverted by Malik Muhammad Rashid, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, since, admittedly, notification contemplated by section 5 of the Act was never issued while that under section 6 ibid was gazetted after nearly a decade of the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act; consequently, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have come to an end, in view whereof, granting the petition, the impugned notification is declared to be a nullity in the eye of law; however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.