FARHAN MUSTAFA vs State Preamble — 2022 YLR 1 ISLAMABAD

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

FARHAN MUSTAFA VS State Preamble--- Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199, 9, 14, 23 & 24---Allegations of the petitioner were that a Company was involved in massive land grabbing and other illegal activities with direct and indirect support of the police, revenue officials and the regulator; that private armed people were dispossessing citizens of their properties and that too of land which had been acquired but compensation relating to built up properties was yet to be paid to the affected owners; the competent authorities had not completed the acquisition proceedings under the law and that the private armed persons had no authority to take the law in their hands on behalf of the Company by depriving citizens of their rights; it was asserted that the public functionaries and officials of the Authority were facilitating the Company in violating the rights of the citizens who were in possession of their ancestral properties---Record showed that the petitioner filed application (CM) along therewith an affidavit executed, amongst others, by the Chief Executive of the Company was attached, stating therein that settlement was arrived at in a 'jirga' and that the Company had removed the illegal obstruction to the property of the petitioner and that an assurance was given that the access to the property would not be interfered with---On the basis of that settlement deed it was prayed by the company that the petitioner might be allowed to withdraw his petition---Validity---Held, said conduct of the Company was an affirmation of the grievance of the petitioner---Authority, as a statutory entity, had to act in the public interest---Grievances of the petitioners were regarding gross violations of constitutionally guaranteed rights, failure of the State and its institutions to protect them---Grievances were affirmed during the proceedings---Most disturbing grievance was absence of rule of law and treating the company as being above the law---In the present case, the Authority breached that pivotal obligation---Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 empowered the Authority to acquire land pursuant to preparing a scheme and such land then vested in the State---In the present case, several applications were filed by persons claiming to be innocent bona fide purchasers and thus supporting the case of the Company---Could they be treated as bona fide purchasers and thus made a reason for condoning the gross illegalities and abuse of authority and law by the Company and the Board of the Authority---Purported "No Objection Certificate" explicitly barred the Company from giving possession of plots till the scheme was completed and the completion certificate had been issued---No construction could have commenced without obtaining permission and approval under the Ordinance of 1960 and the Regulations framed thereunder---No legal right had accrued in favour of the purchasers to claim condoning of the gross illegalities by the Company and the Authority, however, the grievances of the petitioners were regarding gross violations of constitutionally guaranteed rights, failure of the State and its institutions to protect them---Grievances were affirmed during the proceedings---Crucial grievance was absence of rule of law and treating the Company as being above the law, thus, land acquired under the Ordinance of 1960 vested in the State and it could not be used, directly or indirectly, in violation of the scheme and provisions thereof---Acquired land could not have been used as a tool to overcome the condition precedent for obtaining "No Objection Certificate"---"No Objection Certificate" was thus illegal, void and issued without lawful authority and jurisdiction---Acts of the company regarding the acquired land were and continue to be illegal, void and in violation of Fundamental Rights of public at large and in breach of public interest---Concerned authorities were directed by the High Court to remove all the obstructions attributed to the Company on the acquired land---Company was not capable of completing the Housing Scheme till it had fulfilled all the conditions required for becoming eligible to obtain a "No Objection Certificate"--- High Court further directed that Board of Authority shall take appropriate decisions regarding the Housing Scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance of 1960 and the Regulations made thereunder inter alia, having regard to the enforced laws which guard against environmental degradation---Concerned Authority shall resolve the complaints regarding land grabbing, obstructing rights of way and other property rights of the citizens---Concerned Authority shall put in place an effective mechanism to redress the complaints of citizens affected by the illegal activities and actions of the Company or those acting on its behalf---To prevent the phenomenon of land grabbing and other violations of property rights in the un-acquired land, Authority shall initiate a process of demarcating the acquired land that vested in the State---Authorities shall retrieve any such land which might be either in the illegal possession of the company or any other private person---All the concerned Authorities shall be responsible, if the phenomenon of land grabbing and illegal dispossession continues within the 1400 square mile area of the Capital Territory---Federal Government would take appropriate decisions regarding initiating a probe relating to the gross illegalities committed in the case in hand and make it an example for restoring rule of law within 1400 square mile area of the Capital of the country---Exemplary accountability would be ensured of those who have caused irretrievable damage and violated the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens---Federal Cabinet was expected to take appropriate decisions for making the Environmental Protection Agency an effective and independent statutory regulator for environmental protection under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997---To prevent adverse environmental impact and abuse of power, Federal Cabinet was expected to set the wheel of law in motion to fulfil the crucial requirements for the actors to accept responsibility and be accountable for their actions---Federal Cabinet was expected to direct the Authority to strictly abide by the laws enforced for guarding against environmental degradation and to prevent further harm to the environment, which violated the rights of life of the citizens---Petitions were allowed and disposed of in said terms.

FARHAN MUSTAFA vs State Preamble — 2022 YLR 1 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR