| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLD 238 = 1999 MLD 1186 |
Writ Petition No.2847 of 1998, decided on 19th May, 1998.
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J
Messrs UCC PRIVATE LIMITED and 4 others---Petitioners
VERSUS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE---Defendant
Law:
Section:
The petitioner-Company is owner of land measuring 64 Kanals and 6 Marlas in village Buddukee Sani, Tehsil and District Lahore, which was purchased for the stated purpose of construction of houses. The District Collector, Lahore, issued impugned notification dated 28-1-1998 published in the official gazette of Punjab on 6-2-1998 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was stated therein that the land of the petitioners was likely to be acquired by the Government at the expense of "Sharif Trust" for the construction of School/Hospital. The petitioner-Company filed the present petition through its Chief Executive to call in question the validity of the impugned notification dated 28-1-1998. Mr. Shahzad Jehangir, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Ch. Mushtaq Hussain, Advocate, argued that "Sharif Trust" was not a Company within the meaning of clause (e) of section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned notification could not have been issued/published for acquiring the land for an individual person. The learned counsel further submitted that the land of the petitioner-Company was being acquired for the benefit of a private trust without there being any public purpose. It was further argued that Mian Sharif family was owning 40 Squares of land in the other villages of the area which were adjacent to the village in question. "Sharif Trust" was already owning 553 Kanals of land in the village in question and there was no necessity for acquiring the land of the petitioners. Reliance was placed on the cases of Muhammad Akbar (through Legal Representatives) and 7 others v. The Commissioner. Rawalpindi Division and 2 others (PLD 1976 Lahore 747) and Muhammad Akbar and another v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and 3 others (1989 CLC 1724). 3-A. It was next submitted that the impugned notification was required to be personally served on the petitioner-Company as required by section 45 of the Act. A reference was made to the case of Mst. Asma Begum, etc. v. Commissioner Karachi, etc. (PLD 1997 Kar. 13). It was lastly submitted that in the…