NOMAN AHMED vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ss — 2022 PLD 75 ISLAMABAD

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

NOMAN AHMED VS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ss.5 & 14(1)---Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), Ss. 25 & 27---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 23, 24 & 199---Constitutional petition---Acquisition of land---Duties and powers of authorities---Negotiated compensation---Delay in payment of compensation---Effect---Petitioners were owners of lands and their grievance was that after acquisition of their lands no compensations were paid to them---Validity---Negotiated settlement approved by Executive Board of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA) was binding and parties were committed to perform their respective obligations---Settlement agreement between the parties met the requirements of just compensation in the context of Art. 24 of the Constitution---High Court directed Federal Government to ensure implementation of settlement agreement---Power of compulsory acquisition or eminent domain was abused by Capital Development Authority (CDA) by denying to affected property owners their acknowledged vested rights---Such was a Constitutional and statutory duty of CDA and Federal Government to 'compensate' all affected citizens whose rights stood admitted and acknowledged---Every affected citizen who was subjected to power of compulsory land acquisition and whose right to either allotment of plot or payment in monetary terms was acknowledged by CDA had a Constitutional right to be 'compensated' without further delay based on the principle of equivalence, otherwise it would be confiscatory and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 9, 23 & 24 of the Constitution---Such was a statutory and Constitutional duty of Federal Government to formulate a policy regarding enforcement of acknowledged vested rights of affected citizens who were subjected to the power of eminent domain but were not compensated despite lapse of inordinate delay---High Court directed Federal Government to give such directions to CDA as were necessary to enforce acknowledged vested rights---Market values determined through awards announced before year 2010 had lost their efficacy and payment made on the basis thereof was likely to have confiscatory effect even if it was in addition to 8% per annum---No property could be legitimately condemned by exercising the power of eminent domain if the owner was not 'compensated'---Such was mandatory for authorities to reassess market values in a fair and transparent manner to avoid likelihood of confiscatory effect, followed by prompt payment directly to the affected owner of the property---High Court directed Federal Government to formulate uniform policy regarding acquisition of land, determination of market value or giving rehabilitation benefit in case of exercise of power of eminent domain by CDA or FGEHA, as the case could be---High Court further directed Federal Government that while formulating policy it would ensure that the policy was in consonance with the rights of citizens likely to be affected and duties of public functionaries towards them---High Court also directed that Federal Government through its policy directions would ensure that procedures adopted while exercising the power of eminent domain was clear, predictable, transparent and fair so that opportunities for corruption were not created---Federal Government could also consider directing CDA and FGEHA, as the case could be, to issue awards for acquisition of land and built up properties so as to avoid insurmountable complications---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

NOMAN AHMED vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Ss — 2022 PLD 75 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD