Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YASEEN KHAN and 6 others VS Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, KASUR and 8 others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Fazal-e-Mahmood Title:MUHAMMAD YASEEN KHAN and 6 others vs DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, KASUR and 8 others Case No.: Amended Writ Petition No, 5250/R of 1983 Date of Judgment:1984-02-19 Reported As: 1985 MLD 565 Result: Petition accepted Judgment ORDER ' This Writ Petition has been filed to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings being taken by the respondents for acquiring the petitioner's land located in the area of Town Committee Kanganpur for construction of a rural health center. 2. The brief facts are that notifications under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued by the authorities for acquisition of the petitioner's land. On examination of the record, it emerged that the compensation to be awarded was to be paid wholly out of the private funds provided by the Chairman, Town Committee, Kanganpur. The background of the case precisely is that the Government sanctioned the construction of the rural health center subject to the condition that the area for locating this rural health center was provided by the people on self-help basis. Pursuant to this arrangement, the Government later communicated to the authorities that if land was not available within the area of the Town Committee, it may be found within one mile from its outer limits. It is stated that this exercise failed and consequently resort was had to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The provisions of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are in point and in particular proviso to section 6 ibid lays down that no declaration in terms of section 6 shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. This requirement in the patent facts of this case which is a condition precedent for the acquisition did not appear to have been fulfilled under the present arrangement.
---
## Page 2
4. I need not dilate further on the controversy involved for the reason that the learned Advocate- General, Punjab, Sh. Riaz Ahmad frankly stated that the above noted requirement not having been met, the present proceedings will not be carried any further and that there had been some misunderstanding or the law was overlooked in initiating the impugned proceedings. According to him, this defect was curable by the authorities concerned by taking proper proceedings, if so advised, in strict compliance with the law by meeting the expenses for the acquisition out of public funds within the meaning of the proviso to section 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has nothing further to urge. 5. I am clear in my mind that a writ in the nature of certiorari or a direction of that kind can be issued on the basis of admission by the respondents in the face of the Court. 6. In view of this position, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned proceedings are quashed. It will, however, be open for the authorities concerned to proceed in conformity with law. There will be no order as to costs in view of the reasonableness of the attitude of the respondents.