| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4179 2025 SLD 4179 = 2025 CLC 866 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2024, decided on 11th March, 2024.
Before Asim Hafeez, J
Muhammad Aurengzaib Khan, Rana Asif Saeed and Syed Tajamal Hussain Bukhari for Petitioners. Mrs. Samina Mehmood Rana, Additional Advocate General. Malik Sohail Ashiq for
Respondents. Ms. Maria Rafique, Chief Law Officer, NTDC. Mian Nazar Muhammad Arain for WAPDA. Irshad Hussain, Tehsildar, Muzaffargarh. Muhammad Waseem Sheikh, Land Acquisition Collector.
Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2024, decided on 11th March, 2024.
Before Asim Hafeez, J
Muhammad Aurengzaib Khan, Rana Asif Saeed and Syed Tajamal Hussain Bukhari for Petitioners. Mrs. Samina Mehmood Rana, Additional Advocate General. Malik Sohail Ashiq for
Respondents. Ms. Maria Rafique, Chief Law Officer, NTDC. Mian Nazar Muhammad Arain for WAPDA. Irshad Hussain, Tehsildar, Muzaffargarh. Muhammad Waseem Sheikh, Land Acquisition Collector.
Syed ALI RAZA RIZVI and 33 others ---Petitioners
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER, D.G. KHAN DIVISION and 10 others ---Respondents
Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section: I,4,5,5A,6,9,10,17(1),17(2),17(4)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Elections Act, 2017
Section: XXXIII,230
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)-------Ss. 4, 5, 5-A, 6, 9, 17(1)(2) & 17(4)---Acquisition of land---Case of urgency--Violation of acquisition process, allegation of---Petitioners (landowners) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court assailing land acquisition process for the development of Peak Capacity Solar PV Project to be acquired by National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC) (the company tasked with the assignment of implementation of the project)---Objection raised regarding the effect of issuance of notices under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act 1894'), after the expression of urgency was conveyed and materialized in shape of the Notification under S. 17(4) of the Act 1894---Validity---Subsection (1) of S. 17 of the Act, 1894 transpired that the Commissioner was assigned the lead role and upon Commissioner's directions, the Collector was competent to take possession of the land after passing of fifteen days, from the publication of the notice under S. 9(1) of the Act 1894---Notwithstanding the fact that notice under S. 9 of Act, 1894 was issued after Notification under S. 17(4) of the Act 1894, no infringement of the statutory command was evidently committed---Petitioners had the opportunity to file objections after the notices issued under Ss. 9 & 10 of the Act, 1894, but their ambition was to knock-down the purpose of acquisition, which purpose had to fail--Constitutional petition, filed by land-owners, was dismissed, in circumstances.(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)-------Ss. 4, 5, 5-A, 6, 9, 17(1)(2) & 17(4)---Acquisition of land---Case of urgency--Violation of acquisition process, allegation of---Petitioners (landowners) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court assailing land acquisition process for the development of Peak Capacity Solar PV Project to be acquired by National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC), (the company tasked with the assignment of implementation of the project)---Objection raised was that Notification under Ss. 17(4) & 6 of the Act, 1894, was issued by non-relevant Commissioner (Rawalpindi) and not by…