Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ALLAH DITTA KHOKHAR And Others VS Respondent: THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Shahnawaz Khan, Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Muhammad Haleem Title: ALLAH DITTA KHOKHAR And Others vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Another Case No.:Writ Petition No.356 of 1981 Civil Petition forSpecial Leave to Appeal No. 201-
R of 1981 Date of Judgment:1981-12-06 Reported As: 1986 SCMR 1293 Result: Leave granted Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG, C.J. --By section 3 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, the Governor of Punjab accorded his approval to the Area Development Scheme No. II for Low Income Housing at Rawalpindi (for Pakistanis living abroad) and thereby acquired 50 Acres of land situate in village Gangal under Notification No. S.O. (P) H & PP-7-9/76, dated 18th of May, 1981, and earmarked for this scheme. The area of this village fell partly in Rawalpindi and partly in Islamabad districts. The President, under his directive, dated 26th of August, 1981, directed that the boundary of the Federal Capital Territory should be drawn afresh to facilitate administrative arrangements and development work in 52 villages including village Gangal which would form part of the Federal Territory and that further laws were to be amended accordingly. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the acquisition of the land and filed a Writ Petition No. 356 of 1981 in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, but did not succeed as the High Court held that in the absence of any Notification under section 3 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, declaring any part of the specified area to be a part of the Capital Territory no legal objection to the acquisition of land could be made. In the context of the President's directive, it is a matter for consideration as to whether the said land can be acquired under the Provincial Law. This and the other grounds raised in the petition require examination. Accordingly, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioners. Security for costs Rs.2,000. In the meantime interim order to continue subject, however, to the issuance of any fresh order under any other law. The appeal arising out of this petition should be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any.