IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
FESENt:
MR. JUSTICE JJAZ UL AHSAN
MRS. JUSTICE AYESHA A. MALIK
(-3
cIy4iPetitio N0.5796. 5797 of 2021
and CMA No. 11746 of 2021.
(On appeal against the judgment dated 2309.2021 passed
by the EPA P/os.21 and 26012021)
Government of Pakistan through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and another.
Petitioner(s)
Versu 
(in all cases)
Farzand Begum and others. 
. .Respondenqs)
(in all cases)
For the Petitioner(s):
For Respdtsg$1.8
Date of Hearing
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhattj, Addl. AGP,
Mr. Ajmal Raza Bhatti, ASC.
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR.
(in both cases)
Mr. Mudassat Khajid Abbasi,
ASC.
(in both cases)
09.02.2022 (JR.)
ORDER
IJAZ UL ARSAN, .5.- This single order shall decide
CPLA No.5795 of 2021 and CPLA No.5797 of 2021 as they
arise out of the sane impugned judgment and involve
common questions of law and fact.
2. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against a
judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench,
Rawalpindi dated 23.09.2021 whereby EFA Nos.21 and 26 of
2021 filed by the Petitioners were dismissed.
. -
Quil Petitions No 5796, 5797 of2022 2
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these petitions
are that land measuring 30 kanals bearing Khasra No. 1200
situated in Village Saeelah, District Jhelum was initially
requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence in the year 1950.
Subsequently, such land was acquired through the process of
acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 120,000/- per
marla vide Award dated 07.09.2016. The Respondents were
dissatisfied with the Award and challenged the same by way
of References which were accepted by the Senior Civil
Judge/Referee Court, Jhelum vide judgment and decree
dated 06.03.20 18 holding that the Respondents were entitled
to receive Rs.480,000/- per marla as compensation alongwith
15% acquisition charges. The petitioners challenged the said
judgment and decree through Regular First Appeals which
were dismissed. Such dismissal was challenged before this
Court through Civil Appeal No.2077 of 2019 which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 20.02.2020.
4. The Respondents thereafter initiated execution
proceedings during which the petitioners filed an application
seeking suspension of the process of execution on the ground
that they had taken steps to get the property de-notified and
returned to the owners. In support of their stance that the
property could be dc-notified reliance was placed on Section
48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act"). However,
neither the Executing Court nor the High Court agreed with
the stance taken by the petitioners that the property could be
No.5795 5797.f2o2l
3
de-notifled and the amount of compensation awarded by the
Referee Court which was Upheld upto this Court was not
Payable if the Property was de-notified
5. 
The learned Additional Attorney General for
Pakistan has argued that the lower fora have overlooked the
fact that the land had been acquired for a public purpose but
due to non-availability of funds 
Occupation of the said land by
the Military had been abandoned He maintains that in terms
of Section 48 of the Act the Government is at 
liberty to
Withdraw from any acquisition that has taken place. He
maintains that the de-notification of the land would
essentially mean that the property would be restored to its
original owners who would be at liberty to dispose it of at its
market value hence no prejudice or financial loss is likely to
be Caused to the Respondents.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Respondents has defended the impugned judgment. He
maintains that the provisions of Section 48 of the Act have
correctly been appreciated and interpreted by the High Court,
the process of acquisition stands completed Possession has
since long been with the P etitioners and the petitioners are
Under an Obligationto pay 
compensation in terms of the
judgment and decree of the Executing Court which has been
Upheld upto this Court.
We have heed the learned Counsel for the Ptie
d gone through the record. The Core controversy between
Citjj Pet it bits No 796 5797 
2021
the Parties revolves around the correct 
interpretation of
Section 48 of the Act which for ease of reference is 
reproduced
below:
`48- Comp "' of acquisition
Compulso 
but
compensation to be awarded when not completed (1)
Except in the Case provided for in 
section 36, the
Executive District
Officer (Revenue)) shall be at liberty to
Withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which
Possession has not been taken.
(2) 
Whenever the Exetjve District
(Revenue)) Withdraws from 
Officer
 any such the
Collector shall determine
due 
the amount of Compensation
for the damage Suffered by 
the Owner in
Consequence of the notice or of any Proceedings
'hereunder, and shall Pay such
 
interestedtogetheramount to the person
by him with all costs reasonably incurred
in the Prosecution of the Proceedings under this
Act relating to the said land.
apply,
(3) 
The 
Pro 
vis i07 of Pan III of this Act shall
SO far as
 
compefl5 
may be, to the 
determination of the
j0 
payable under this section"
A bare Perusal of the 
Section makes it manifestly
clear 
that although the Government has the Power 
to
Withdraw from acquisition 
of any Property, such Power is not
absolute and is circumscribed by an 
important
 Prerequisite
ely, "poss sion has not been taken by the 
Government
or the acquiring Department". 
Further, the Powers Under
Section 48 of the Act can be exercised only where the
execution Proceedings in terms of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 have not been completed In the instant case,
no denialthere is
of the fact that not Only the acquisition P
roceedings
have been completed the Award has been wnounced the
Civil Petftio, No 5796, 579/of  2021
S
rate of compensation was challenged by the Respondents
before a Referee Court which revised the amount of
compensation and such enhanced compensation was not only
upheld by the High Court but also by this Court.
8. 
Further, it has not been denied that possession
has Since long been with the acquiring Department.We are
therefore of the view that acquisition Proceedings for all
practical purposes have been Completed together with
transfer of Possession. As such, the Power of the Government
to withdraw from the acquisition of the property is no longer
available and it cannot at this stage be allowed to retrace its
steps to undo the entire process which has been going on for
years on end.
9. 
The argument of the learned Law Officer that no
prejudice or monetary loss is likely to be suffered by the
Respondents who can still sale the property in the open
market is not sufficient to alter the legal Position as
encapsulated in Section 48 of the Act and any deviation from
the same on the basis of admitted facts would amount to
departure and deviation from the letter of law for extraneous
Considerations which is neither advisable nor permissible
under the law. The learned Addl.AGP has not been able to
convince us that there is any error, defect or flaw legal or
jurisdictional in the impugned judgment of the High Court
that may furnish basis, justification or ground for grant of
leave to appeal in this matter. Consequentiy, we do not find
any merit in these petitions. The
dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.
Civil ?etiEons No. 5796, 5797 of 2021
Announced in open Court at Islamabad on 2.02.2_.
r°
Foing'
