IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
     
     (Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi 
 
 
 
CIVIL PETITIONs NOs.467 & 468 OF 2021 &  
CIVIL PETITIONs NOs.80-Q & 81-Q OF 2021 
(Against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the High Court 
of Balochistan at Quetta in C.P No.766, 811 of 2020) 
 
D.H.A. Quetta 
 
 
 
 
…  Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Quetta Residencia Housing Scheme, 
Quetta and others  
 
 
 
…  Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. M. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr.ASC 
 
(in C.P.467,468/2021) 
 
Mr. Arbab M. Tahir, A.G. Balochistan 
 
Mr. M. Ayaz Swati,  
 
Addl. A.G. Balochistan 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Naeem  
 
(Representative of Quetta Residencia) 
 
On Court’s notice: 
Ch. Aamir Rehman,  
 
Addl. A.G. for Pakistan 
 
Date of hearing: 
16.03.2021. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
 
Umar Ata Bandial, J. Submits that the impugned 
judgment 
dated 
16.12.2020, 
wrongly 
presumes 
the 
Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LAA 1894’) to be a Federal law and holds 
Section 6(b)(1) of the Defence Housing Authority Quetta Act, 2015 
(‘Act’) which allows the petitioner to acquire land in accordance 
with the LAA,1894, to be violative of Article 142 of the Constitution 
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (‘Constitution’). In fact 
both the Act and the LAA, 1894 are provincial laws and there is no 
 CPs Nos.467, 468 of 2021  
& CPs. 80-Q & 81-Q of 2021 
 
2
encroachment by the Act into the Federal Legislative field. The 
impugned judgment also strikes down Section 6(b)(14) and Section 
14(b) of the Act as these impose restrictions on owning and holding 
land that are violative of Articles 23 & 24 of the Constitution. This 
finding holds that restrictions with respect to a ‘Specified Area’ in 
the Act apply to land that is intended to be purchased, procured, 
acquired or leased by the petitioner. In other words, the restrictions 
govern such land in which the DHA has no legal interest as owner 
or lessee. On the other hand, Section 3(q) of the Act defines 
‘Specified Area’ to mean land that is already purchased, acquired, 
leased or procured by the petitioner. The constraints placed on a 
Specified Area in terms of the Act relate only to such land in which 
the petitioner has a legal interest and not to land that belongs to a 
third party. Therefore, the impugned judgment has taken an 
erroneous view of law on this point.  
2. 
 
On Court’s query, as to the purpose and effect of the 
constraints envisaged in the Act for land falling in a Specified Area, 
learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 6(b)(14) 
and Section 14(b)  of the Act. These provisions restrain a local 
authority or a private person from starting its own development 
scheme in a Specified Area without a NOC issued by the petitioner. 
This requirement is meant to ensure harmony between the 
development schemes prepared for land in a Specified Area by the 
petitioner on the one hand and by a local authority/private person 
on the other hand. In any event, he reiterates that this condition is 
imposed on land (in a Specified Area) which belongs to the 
petitioner. 
 CPs Nos.467, 468 of 2021  
& CPs. 80-Q & 81-Q of 2021 
 
3
3. 
 
Learned counsel has finally submitted that the writ 
petition filed by respondent No.1 in C.P. No.468/2021 was in fact 
sought to be withdrawn by the respondent (writ petitioner) but 
permission to do so was declined by the learned High Court. That a 
writ petition is maintainable before a learned High Court under 
Article 199 of the Constitution at the instance of an aggrieved party. 
After the aggrieved petitioner party seeks withdrawal of his writ 
petition then any further proceedings therein are in the nature of 
suo motu proceedings. Relies upon Dr. Imran Khattak and 
another versus Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, PSO to Chief Justice 
and others (2014 SCMR 122) and Raja Muhammad Nadeem 
versus The State and another (PLD 2020 SC 282) to add that a 
High Court lacks jurisdiction to hold suo motu proceedings. Finally 
submits that the controversy decided by the learned High Court is 
academic in nature because no notification declaring a Specified 
Area has yet been notified under the Act.  
4.  
 
The concerns expressed about the Act by the learned 
High Court may not have been precisely formulated, however, these 
do invite caution. How can an acquiring agency conduct acquisition 
proceedings for itself without indulging in conflict of interest? Also 
such a power is lacking in the sister organizations of the petitioner 
established in other urban areas of the country. In order to 
examine, inter alia, the aforesaid question and the validity of the 
points raised by the learned counsel, we grant leave to appeal. 
5. 
 In the meanwhile, the petitioner may develop its schemes in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act whilst ensuring that the 
petitioner exercises no power in relation to land that is outside the 
 CPs Nos.467, 468 of 2021  
& CPs. 80-Q & 81-Q of 2021 
 
4
scope of a Specified Area as defined in Section 3(q) of the Act. 
Furthermore, the petitioner, whilst exercising powers under Section 
6(b) and Section 14 of the Act shall adopt a cooperative approach in 
consulting with the concerned local authorities or provincial 
government for formulating its development schemes. The impugned 
judgment shall remain in abeyance for the exercise of powers to the 
above extent by the petitioner/authority.  
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
16th March, 2021 
Azmat + Irshad Hussain /* 
 
 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING. 
