OLYMPIA CHEMICAL LTD vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary (Board of Revenue) arts

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

OLYMPIA CHEMICAL LTD VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary (Board of Revenue) arts. 24 & 268---Land acquisition act (I of 1894), Preamble---Land acquisition act, 1894, being a colonial law, continuity of---Scope---In terms of art. 268 of Constitution, continuance in force of the Land acquisition act, 1894, ('the act 1894') is subject to the Constitution and with necessary adaptations until altered, amended or repealed by the appropriate legislature---The phrase "subject to the Constitution" indicates that the continuance in force of laws was made subordinate to the constitutional scheme---Thus, continuance in force of the act 1894, by virtue of art. 268 of the Constitution, does not render any of the provisions of the act, 1894,immune from challenge for being ultra vires the Constitution including on the ground of repugnancy to the fundamental right guaranteed under art.24 of Constitution---Petitioner/ Company failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, any violation of acquisition laws or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the Respondents regretting petitioner's request for acquisition of land owned by private owners---Constitutional petition, filed by company/factory, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 735 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case OLYMPIA CHEMICAL LTD VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary (Board of Revenue) S. 4---acquisition of land sought by a company for a factory---Public purpose---Scope---Compulsory acquisition, non-permitting of---Protection of property---Scope---Interpretation of statutes---"Reading down" of a provision--- Company, having already established factory by acquiring land, sought additional land from private land owners in order to enhance its production capacity by extending of its area---Company invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being aggrieved of rejection of acquisition by Respondents (Board of Revenue-Settlement and all relevant departments)---Contention of the petitioner/company was that acquisition of land for the company was not necessarily required to be for the public purpose as the same might be for construction of a work that is likely to prove useful to the public---Objection of Respondents is that even for industrial purpose acquisition of land could be allowed only when it served public purpose while the request of the petitioner/company for acquisition of land was merely for commercial purpose as was manifest from their application---Validity---In the scheme of the Land acquisition act, 1894 ('the act 1894'), land can be acquired either for public purpose or for a Company---a literal construction of the provisions of the act 1894 appears to be in conflict with art. 24 of the Constitution insofar as those apparently permit acquisition of property by a Company even in the absence of any public purpose or such other purposes as have been specified in the exceptions stipulated in art. 24(3) of the Constitution---a statutory provision, when read literally, leads to any violation of a fundamental right, or renders it without legislative competence---Court read such a provision narrowly to save it from invalidity---This is a rule of interpretation of statutes termed as "reading down"---The rule of "reading down", when applied to the Land acquisition act, 1894, would permit acquisition of property only for public purpose or any other purpose specified in sub-article (3) of art. 24 of the Constitution---Petitioner/Company failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, any violation of acquisition laws or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the Respondents regretting petitioner's request for acquisition of land owned by private owners---Constitutional petition, filed by company/factory, being merit-less, was dismissed. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 735 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case OLYMPIA CHEMICAL LTD VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary (Board of Revenue) Ss. 3(e) & 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 23 & 24(2)---Acquisition of land by a company fora factory---Public purpose---Scope---Compulsory acquisition, non-permitting of---Scope---Protection of property---Scope---Company, having already established factory by acquiring land, sought additional land from private land owners in order to enhance its production capacity by extending its area---Company invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being aggrieved of rejection of acquisition by respondents (Board of Revenue-Settlement and all relevant departments)---Contention of the petitioner/company was that acquisition of land for a company was not necessarily required to be for the public purpose as the same might be for construction of a work that was likely to prove useful to the public---Objection of respondents was that even for industrial purpose acquisition of land could be allowed only when it served public purpose while the request of the petitioner/company for acquisition of land was merely for commercial purpose as was manifest from their application---Validity---"Company" has been defined in S. 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which means a Company having been registered/ incorporated under prevalent law and includes a society registered under the prevalent law (i.e. Societies Registration Act, 1860 or Cooperative Societies Act, 1912)---In the present case, the request of the petitioner/Company for acquisition of land was merely for commercial purpose as was manifest from their own relevant application---The proposed expansion of the Company's factory aims to increase production of Soda Ash and Sodium Bicarbonate, which is essentially a commercial purpose---Article 24(2) of the Constitution erects a formidable barrier against the Government's use of authority for advancing private commercial interests---Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property, emphasizes that any restriction on this right must be reasonable and in the public interest---Compelling landowners to relinquish their property for a private company's commercial gain, without a direct public utility, failed this test---Acquisition of private land for a purpose other than public purpose is not legal---Requisition and acquisition for purpose of private business concern and not for public purpose or in public interest is illegal---Petitioner/Company failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, any violation of acquisition laws or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the respondents regretting petitioner's request for acquisition of land owned by private owners---Constitutional petition, filed by company/factory, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 735 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case OLYMPIA CHEMICAL LTD VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary (Board of Revenue) arts. 8(1), 23, 24(1), 24(2) & 24(3)---Land acquisition act (I of 1894), S. 4---acquisition of land sought by a company for a factory---Public purpose---Scope---Compulsory acquisition, non-permitting of---Scope---Protection of property---Scope---Company, having already established factory by acquiring land, sought additional land from private land owners in order to enhance its production capacity by extending its area---Company invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court being aggrieved of rejection of acquisition by Respondents (Board of Revenue-Settlement and all relevant departments)---Contention of the petitioner/company was that acquisition of land for a company was not necessarily required to be for the public purpose as the same might be for construction of a work that was likely to prove useful to the public---Objection of respondents was that even for industrial purpose acquisition of land could be allowed only when it served public purpose while the request of the petitioner/company for acquisition of land was merely for commercial purpose as was manifest from their application---Validity---article 8(1) of the Constitution postulates that any law or any custom or usage having the force of law, insofar as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part II, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void---article 23 of the Constitution grants every citizen the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property within Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest---article 24 of the Constitution guarantees/embodies protection of property rights, which inter alia postulates that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law---Sub-article (2) of art. 24 of the Constitution further restricts acquisition or taking possession of any property except for public purpose only and that too by the authority of law which provides for compensation therefor---Sub-article (3) of art. 24 of the Constitution contains specified exceptions to the general rules articulated in the first two provisions of art. 24 of the Constitution, whereby validity of any law permitting compulsory acquisition or taking possession of any property has been made immune from challenge for certain purposes specified therein---Inasmuch as the exceptions specified in sub-article (3) of art. 24 of the Constitution limit the protection of fundamental right to property guaranteed under sub-article (1), therefore, the same are to be construed narrowly and there is no room for reading into the said article anything that abridges or undermines the protection of property rights---Thus, the principle of harmonious construction of the provisions of art. 24 of the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that protection of property rights guaranteed under art. 24 of the Constitution is only abridged or taken away for compulsory acquisition or taking possession of it under any law for any public purpose or such other purpose as have been clearly specified in art. 24(3) of the Constitution---No provision of art. 24 of the Constitution permits compulsory acquisition or taking possession of any property by or under any law merely because the same is required for a company for its commercial purposes---Petitioner/Company failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity, any violation of acquisition laws or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders passed by the respondents regretting petitioner's request for acquisition of land owned by private owners---Constitutional petition, filed by company/factory, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

OLYMPIA CHEMICAL LTD vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary (Board of Revenue) arts — 2025 PLD 735 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD