ISLAMABAD: The defense ministry’s decision to rescind the purchase of 3413 acres of land after 50 years in order to avoid paying compensation to the landowners who were judged to be eligible by the highest court in 2018 has been strongly opposed by the Supreme Court.
In a lengthy 11-page ruling, Justice Shahid Waheed rejected the defense ministry’s argument, pointing out that the land acquisition process had begun in 1977 but had been severely slowed down because of the ministry’s incompetence and carelessness, and that the landowners had been fighting for their rightful share of the land ever since.
It noted that no legislation could accept the action to withdraw the land purchase based on these facts since the appellants and petitioners were too careless. The decision went on to say that the notice from October 7, 2019, under Section 48, is not credible anymore. On the contrary, the landowners would see it as a strategy employed by the defense ministry to trick them.
“The government should not behave in this way toward its citizens.” Land acquisition cannot be rescinded, according to a three-judge panel presided over by Justice Munib Akhtar.According to the order, the 3413 kanal and 11 marlas of land are at issue in this case, which is situated in various mouzajats of the Nowshera District.
The land in question was originally leased out to the ministry of defense for use as an artillery range in 1955. With an eye toward eventual acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, a notice under Section 4 was issued on May 13, 1977. The subsequent proceedings under this section dragged on for 22 years, culminating in the announcement of the award on April 21, 1999.
Another wave of hardships for the landowners came as a result of this, leading to lengthy litigation over the proper assessment of the seized land. At last, on February 15, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling, valuing the land at Rs 12,000/-per marla, plus 6% simple interest and 15% forced acquisition charges.
The landowners were nevertheless forced to go to court in order to receive the compensation amount, as mentioned in the decision. In order to have the decree executed, they went to the District Court. Here, the defense ministry, which had been purchasing the land, sought permission to restore it to its rightful owners after trying every possible delay tactic. The reason given was that the department had no cash to pay.
The high court affirmed the lower court’s decision from May 6, 2019, which denied the request. The defense authorities decided to pull the last arrow out of their quiver and withdraw from the acquisition on October 7, 2019, in response to this tight situation, according to the directive.
Because of this, the landowners challenged the notice in the Peshawar High Court, using its constitutional authority. The date of approval for this petition was June 10, 2021. Currently, the PHC order is being contested by the defense ministry. According to the ruling, the landowners were compelled to relinquish control of their property due to the award.
The land’s ownership by the acquiring department in the 1999 record of rights further supports this. Consequently, it is evident that the government agency responsible for acquisition has had full ownership of the land since 1999,” it further stated.The order stated that the commissioner lost the right to withdraw, rescind, recall, or amend any notification regarding the acquisition since the defense authorities had taken possession of the land in accordance with the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Since the acquiring department lacked the financial means to cover the compensation, he could not rely on Section 48. After taking ownership of land, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 does not allow for any kind of withdrawal from the acquisition.No one could possibly put the landowners in a difficult position. The government had taken their important right to the real estate, so they couldn’t be expected to wait forever.According to the court, the government or its acquiring department should have decided swiftly—and before taking possession—and informed the landowners of their situation if they did not have the payments.
