SHAH MUHAMMAD vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had directed WAPDA to pay Rs. 12,000 as compensation for land acquired in 1968. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, sought an order for payment at current market rates. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could re-determine the market value of land acquired decades prior, or direct the Land Acquisition Officer to do so, when the original compensation had already been determined under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court could not determine market value in constitutional jurisdiction, nor could it order the Land Acquisition Officer to revisit a determination long settled under the Land Acquisition Act. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was time-barred by nine days without sufficient cause for condonation, and the original writ petition itself could have been dismissed on the grounds of laches given the significant delay between the 1968 acquisition and the 1991 filing.
- Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction determine the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Is a writ petition challenging land compensation amounts maintainable after a significant delay amounting to laches?
- Can a court direct a Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine compensation for land acquired decades earlier?
- Land Acquisition Act 1894
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16-6-1993 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court passed in I.C.A. No,42 of 1993 filed by the petitioner, allowing the same as under:-- "11. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the Intra-Court Appeal and allow the writ petition with the direction to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to pay Rs,12,000,. The amount of compensation of the land of the appellant within one month against his. Personal security to the satisfaction of concerned Land Acquisition Collector, WAPDA, undertaking therein that if any other lawful claimant came forward he shall share this amount with him."
2. The brief facts are that certain land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for WAPDA in or about 1968 Rs,12,000 were determined as the amount of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is the case of WAPDA that the above amount was paid to the complainant. However, the case of the petitioner is that he has not been paid as he was unaware of the above acquisition proceedings. Be that as it may, the petitioner made efforts to get redress from WAPDA. Since he did not get any relief, he filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed. Thereupon, he filed the aforementioned I.C.A. Which has been allowed in the above terms. The petitioner has, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. The above petition is barred by time by 9 days and no justifiable ground has been shown for coadunation of delay. However, we have examined the case on merits. It has been urged by Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, learned AC appearing for the petitioner, that the learned Judges of the Division Bench should have ordered for the payment of compensation to the petitioner at the market rate and not for the payment of the above sum of Rs,12,000.
4. The above contention is misconceived as the learned Judges of the Division Bench in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction could not have determined the market value of the land involved nor they could have directed the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the same as the same was already determined in , accordance with law under the relevant statute. The land was acquired in 1968 as stated hereinabove, whereas the writ petition was filed in 1991. Even the relief which has been granted to the petitioner by the learned Judges of the Division Bench could have been denied on the ground of laches as A well as on merits. We are not inclined to grant leave. Leave is refused.