2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Doctrines and tools of interpretation applied by the superior courts to adjudge the legitimacy, vires, ultra vires, repeal, overriding, or supremacy of one statute over the other stated. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA S. 6---acquisition of land for housing society---Public purpose---Scope---acquisition of land for residence of Government servants/ housing society was a "public purpose". Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA S. 6 & Preamble---Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), Chapt. VI & Preamble---Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance (XXVII of 1981), S. 5---Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT)---Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with necessary substitutions and amendments was applicable to Islamabad Capital Territory. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA arts. 9, 24 & 152---Eminent domain, power of---Scope---Power of the State to take private property and convert it into public use---Power of 'Eminent Domain' was a proprietary aspect of sovereignty (of State) and was inseparable from it; it was an inherent attribute of a sovereign State and the manifestation of the sovereign authority of 'Eminent Domain' could be traced to art. 24 of the Constitution---Such power vests within the State, or its delegated instrumentality, to expropriate private property for public use, and/or for company against adequate, or reasonable, compensation payable to the owner of property---Historical origin and recognition of the concept of 'Eminent domain' in the United States and the sub-continent stated. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Two competing or overlapping statutes/provisions---Doctrine of 'pith and substance', 'incidental encroachment', and 'occupied field'---Scope. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA art. 205 & Fifth Sched.---Land acquisition act (I of 1894), S. 6---Federal Government Employees Housing authority act (IV of 2020), Ss. 3(2) & 12---Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court---Entitlement to State land/plots---Neither the Constitution nor any law entitled judges of superior courts to receive land or plots from the [erstwhile] Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation or out of any compulsorily acquired land---Practice of giving away the ummah's land to judges was also contrary to the Injunctions of Islam. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Ss. 23 & 24---Land acquisition---Compensation, quantum of---Parameters---Divergent Federal and Provincial regimes/laws for determining compensation---Observations recorded by the Supreme Court for adopting a single uniform compensation mechanism. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Where the Parliament intended for the law to have overriding effect, the words of the statute, in their natural, ordinary, or popular sense, would clearly declare so---Courts were not under a duty to either enlarge or curtail the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislators. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Implied repeal, doctrine of---Presumption---Scope. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA S. 6 & Preamble---Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), Chap. VI & Preamble---Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance (XXVII of 1981), S. 5---Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT)---Applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 ('the Ordinance') did not contain an overriding or non-obstante clause nor vested exclusive jurisdiction in Capital Development Authority (CDA) with regard to land acquisition in ICT---When land was required for the use and/or purpose of CDA it could be compulsorily acquired under the Ordinance, but where land was not required for the use and/or purpose of the CDA it could not be acquired under the Ordinance, but only under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Sched. I, Entry No. 11 & Sched. II, Serial No. 14, Entry No. 2---[Erstwhile] Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation, nature of---Scope---Purpose that was being carried out by the [erstwhile] Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation ('the Foundation') was one that fell within the powers of the Division of the Ministry of Housing and Works---Fact that the Chairman of the Board of Governors for the Foundation was the Minister of Housing and Works lent support to the fact that the Foundation exercised functions allocated to the Ministry of Housing and Works under the Rules of Business, 1973---Control of the former Foundation vested solely in the hands of the government as the Board and its Executive Committee were the decision makers in the Foundation---Control of the Foundation, in its entirety, vested within the hands of the government---Given that the Foundation was conducting the affairs of the government, it was the State itself that allocated funds for financing the operation, salary of all its Board members, who were civil servants, and for the staff and activities of the Foundation. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA art. 175(2)--- Jurisdiction of courts--- Scope--- Jurisdiction on court could not be conferred even by consent; unless it was so conferred by or under the Constitution and or law. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA arts. 1(2), 142(c) & 142(d)---Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT)---Legislative competence---Exclusive domain of Federal Government---Only the Federation itself had the exclusive domain to legislate on all matters that were, in their nature, 'residuary subjects', with respect to ICT. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA S. 6--- acquisition of land for the benefit of a segment of the society---Public purpose---Scope---"Public purpose" included any purpose wherein even a fraction of the community may be interested or by which it may be benefited. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA arts. 141, 142 & 143---Competing Federal and Provincial laws---Legislative supremacy---Scope. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 24(2)---Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vires of---For the purpose of acquisition of any property or depriving any person of a property, such exercise of authority needed to be backed by law---Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had constitutional blessing as it was covered under the exception contained in Article 24(2) of the Constitution. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Preamble---Pakistan Air Force Act (VI of 1953), Preamble---Pakistan Navy Ordinance (XXXV of 1961), Preamble---Pakistan Rangers Ordinance (XIV of 1959), Preamble---Frontier Constabulary Act (XIII of 1915), Preamble---Frontier Corps Ordinance (XXVI of 1959), Preamble---National Guards Act (LXI of 1973), Preamble---Pakistan Coast Guards Act (XVIII of 1973), Preamble---Airports Security Force Act (LXXVII of 1975), Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 24, 25, 205 & 227--- State land, entitlement to---Different laws governing those employed in the Army, Air Force, Navy, Rangers, Frontier Constabulary, Frontier Corps, National Guards, Coast Guards and Airports Security Force, did not provide that they be given residential plots, commercial plots or agricultural land (belonging to State/public) nor permitted them to receive the same---Practice of giving away the ummah's land to members of the armed forces was also contrary to the Injunctions of Islam. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA S. 6---Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act (IV of 2020), Ss. 3(2) & 12---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 24(3)(e)(ii), 38(a) & 38(d)---Acquisition of land by [erstwhile] Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation ('Foundation) in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a housing scheme---Plots in the said housing scheme were allotted to government/civil servants and advocates of the Supreme Court---Question as to whether such acquisition of land was for a valid public purpose---Held, that providing housing was specifically mentioned in Art. 24(3)(e)(ii) of the Constitution, therefore, land which was compulsorily acquired for providing housing was for a public purpose and government/civil servants and lawyers, were a specified class of citizens as mentioned in Art. 24(3)(e)(ii)---To provide housing was a basic 'necessity of life', it also 'secured the well being of the people' and 'raised their standard of living'---Said Principles of Policy (mentioned in Arts. 38(a) & 38(d) of the Constitution) reiterated that providing housing was a public purpose---To acquire land in order to provide it to those in need of housing, after compensating the owners, did not detract from the objective of social justice as enunciated in Islam, and it constituted social justice as understood in common parlance--- Appeals were allowed. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Ss. 6 & 16 & Preamble---Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), Chapt. VI & Preamble---Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act (IV of 2020), Ss. 3(2) & 12---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 173---Acquisition of land by [erstwhile] Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation ('Foundation) in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a housing scheme---Plots in the said housing scheme allotted to government/civil servants and advocates of the Supreme Court---Questions as to whether such acquisition of land was for a valid public purpose; and whether subject land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, could only have been acquired by the Capital Development Authority ('Development Authority') under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960---[Per Mushir Alam, J: Capital Development Authority (CDA) under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 ('the Ordinance') did not have exclusive jurisdiction to acquire land and it did not exclude acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act')---Provisions of the Ordinance did not exclude those of the Act with respect to acquisition of land for a public purpose---Furthermore acquisition for a housing scheme for Federal Government employees and allied group constituted a valid public purpose---Acquisition under the Act did not become State largesse under Art. 173 of Constitution read with S. 16 of the Act]---[Per Qazi Faez Isa, J, concurring: Applicable law in the present case for the compulsory acquisition of the land was the Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Subject land was legally acquired by the Foundation and its distribution amongst the allottees did not violate the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor the Constitution]--- Appeals were allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA arts. 19a, 205 & 260(1) & Fifth Sched.---Pakistan army act (XXXIX of 1952), Preamble---Pakistan air Force act (VI of 1953), Preamble---Pakistan Navy Ordinance (XXXV of 1961), Preamble---Right to information---Scope---Distribution of State land amongst those in service of Pakistan (including judges of superior judiciary and members of the armed Forces)---Neither the Constitution nor any law provided for such distribution---affront to the people was confounded when information with regard to distribution of State/ummah's land was kept under wraps---People had every right to know what was given to those in the service of Pakistan and holding constitutional positions---To withhold such information from the people was unconstitutional---Constitutional goal of 'creating an egalitarian society was undermined when public land furtively found its way into private hands---His Lordship observed that since the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory authority Ordinance, 2002 was enacted to ensure accountability, transparency and good governance by optimizing the free flow of information', therefore, a copy of present judgment should be sent to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory authority ('PEMRa') which should send copies onwards to its licencees, who may want to broadcast it; and that PEMRa should ensure that such broadcasts were unimpeded. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Ss. 11 to 21 & Preamble---Capital Development Authority ('CDA') and [erstwhile] Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation ('the Foundation')---'Regulatory capture', doctrine of---Applicability---Both the CDA and the Foundation were not regulators but service providers---Doctrine of 'regulatory capture' as laid down in the case of Imrana Tiwana v Province of Punjab PLD 2015 Lah. 522 did not apply to both of them. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 201 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION (FGEHF), ISLAMABAD VS Malik GHULAM MUSTAFA Presumption that 'Legislature was presumed to know the law'---Scope---Legislature was presumed to know the 'existing laws', judicial pronouncements, and general principles of law---Legislature must be presumed to know the facts and conditions rendering a statute expedient and beneficial---Ignorance of existing laws, judicial pronouncement, and judicial interpretation of law by the highest judicature of the State could not be attributed to the legislature.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR