IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 279-P OF 2015 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 31.03.2015 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in 
Writ Petition No. 615-P/2015) 
 
 
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary etc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Petitioners 
 
VERSUS 
 
Muhammad Khurshid 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioners: 
Mr. Qasim Wadood, Addl. A.G.  
 
Mr. Khial Roze, Inspector 
 
For the Respondent (1): Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
 
For Respondents (2-4): Nemo 
 
Date of Hearing:  
14.12.2020 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition, 
the petitioner called in question the vires of the impugned order 
dated 31.03.2015 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, 
whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 was 
allowed.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that for the 
construction of Police Station Saro Shah, Tehsil Takht Bai, District 
Mardan, in the first instance land belonging to Agricultural and 
Livestock Department was acquired vide notification dated 
06.04.2010. However, an objection was raised by the Agricultural 
Civil Petition No. 279-P/2015 
2
& Livestock Department that the land is being used for public 
purpose, hence, on the basis of said consideration, the notification 
dated 06.04.2014 was withdrawn on 06.06.2014. Thereafter, 
another property owned by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was acquired 
vide notification dated 09.09.2014 but subsequently, the same was 
also de-notified on 10.11.2014 for the reasons best known to the 
petitioner. Ultimately, the land belonging to respondent No. 1 
measuring 23 kanal 5 marla bearing Khasra No. 492 situated at 
Mouza Narri, Tehsil Takht Bai, District Mardan was notified under 
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondent No. 1 
being aggrieved by the notification issued by the Collector filed 
constitution petition before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. 
The learned High Court vide judgment dated 31.03.2015 allowed 
the constitution petition and the notification for acquiring the land 
of the respondent along with de-notification dated 10.11.2014 were 
set aside and the earlier notification dated 09.09.2014, whereby 
the land of respondent No. 2 to 4 was acquired, was restored. 
Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal. 
3. 
 
Learned 
Additional 
Advocate 
General 
inter 
alia 
contended that the impugned judgment suffers from material 
illegality and the same is factually incorrect; that the learned High 
Court has not properly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 199 
of the Constitution; that the land was acquired for public purpose 
and the same cannot be declared as tainted with mala fide; that 
the High Court has passed observations against the persons, who 
were not even party to the proceedings and that the impugned 
judgment is liable to set aside.  
Civil Petition No. 279-P/2015 
3
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other 
hand, defended the impugned judgment. He contended that the 
notification of acquisition of land of the respondent is mala fide / 
arbitrary; that no reason was given for de-notifying the earlier 
notification for acquisition of land and the same was declared that 
it was issued due to the influence of an ex-Parliamentarian; that 
the respondent’s livelihood exclusively depends upon the proceeds 
from the land, which was acquired vide notification dated 
10.11.2014; that one Saeed Wahab had himself offered his land 
but his request was not considered.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 
respondent No. 1 at some length and have gone through the case 
file.  
6. 
 
The learned High Court while allowing the writ petition 
filed by the respondent has mainly relied upon the element of mala 
fides on the part of the acquiring department. The main stay of the 
learned High Court was that due to the influence of a ex-
Parliamentarian, the earlier notification dated 09.09.2014 was de-
notified on 10.11.2014 and the land belonging to respondent No. 1 
was notified. We have minutely perused the entire record. The 
aspect of mala fide as made basis for accepting the constitution 
petition is squarely missing in the proceedings prior to filing of the 
constitution petition before the High Court. We could not find any 
material to substantiate the said aspect, which was made basis 
being the solitary consideration by the learned High Court while 
allowing the constitution petition. We are afraid to note that the 
element of alleged mala fide on the part of acquiring authority is 
also without any legal foundation. According to Preamble of the 
Civil Petition No. 279-P/2015 
4
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was enacted “to amend the law for 
the acquisition of land for public purposes and for Companies.” 
Section 4 of the said Act, reads as follows:- 
“4. (1) Whenever it appears to the Collector of the District that 
land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for 
any public purpose or for a Company, a notification to that 
effect shall be published in the official Gazette, and the 
Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such 
notification to be given at convenient places in the said 
locality.  
 
(2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either 
generally or specially authorized by [the Collector of the 
District] 
in 
this 
behalf, 
and 
for 
his 
servants 
and 
workmen…………….” 
 
 
 
7. 
 
The plain reading of the Preamble and the aforesaid 
Section clearly shows that the acquiring authority is fully 
competent to issue notification if the land is being acquired for 
public purpose. However, it is true that if mere said selection of 
land is based on extraneous considerations or undue influence 
then it may be objected by the affected owner. In this respect, the 
impugned judgment is inadequate in providing/disclosing this 
aspect of alleged mala fide against the petitioner department. The 
learned High Court restored the notification dated 09.09.2014 
whereby land of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 was ordered to be 
acquired without issuing any notice to them. Any proceeding 
arising out of the equity cannot be decided without providing 
opportunity of hearing. The learned High Court ought to have 
followed the principle of audi alteram partem and due process, 
which are basis of administration of justice, specially when any 
Civil Petition No. 279-P/2015 
5
order, if passed, might affect the rights of the entity not party to 
the proceedings. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have already moved 
an application under Section 12(2) CPC before the Peshawar High 
Court, which according to respondent’s counsel is still pending 
adjudication.  
7. 
 
  For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned judgment and 
remand the case back to the learned High Court for a decision 
afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned 
strictly in accordance with law.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
14th of December, 2020 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
