ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the commissioner Rawalpindi to determine afresh the compensation after assessing the market value of the acquired land for the construction of the much-needed Dadhocha Dam.

However, the Nov 2, 2010, preliminary notification and the addendum notification of March 12, 2020, are valid and will remain operative, observed Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in a judgement he wrote.

Justice Shah was a member of the three-judge Supreme Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ayesha A. Malik, that had taken up an appeal of the commissioner Rawalpindi against the Feb 2, 2021, Lahore High Court order which had set aside the notifications issued for the acquisition of land owned by respondents.

“While determining compensation and announcing the award afresh, other factors prescribed under the law for determining the compensation, including the potential value of the land and the escalation in prices of the land from the date of publication of the addendum notification to the date of announcing the new award, shall also be considered and taken into account,” the order said.

Notifications issued in 2010 and 2020 are valid and will remain operative, says court order

The controversy revolved around a request by the executive engineer Small Dams Division, Islamabad, for the acquisition of land in the district of Rawalpindi for the construction of the Dadhocha Dam.

A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (Act) was issued on Nov 2, 2010, published in the official Gazette on Nov 3, 2010, for acquiring 7,977 kanals, 10 marlas in tehsil Rawalpindi (preliminary notification) after which the District Price Assessment Committee (DPAC) at its meeting held on Sept 17, 2011, approved the estimated cost of the land to be acquired by fixing the market value of the land to be between Rs60,000 and Rs100,000 per kanal.

But no further steps were taken by the petitioners in relation to the acquisition until the issuance of an addendum to the preliminary notification on March 12, 2020, published in the official Gazette on March 13, 2020, whereby the land to be acquired was increased from 7,977 kanals 10 marlas to 14,720 kanals, 17 marlas (addendum notification).

A meeting of DPAC was held again on March 20, 2020, to consider the price of the land and it approved the same valuation as had already been approved by DPAC in 2011. Subsequently, a notification under Sections 17(4) and 6 of the Act was issued on April 21, 2020, published in the official Gazette on April 24, 2020, whereby urgency was invoked to expedite the process of acquisition of the land, and the provisions of Section 5 and 5-A of the Act were held not to be applicable (urgency notification).

The respondents challenged the acquisition proceedings but in the meanwhile award was announced on Aug 13, 2020, on the basis of the same valuation of land as determined by DPAC in 2011 and endorsed in 2020.

The writ petitions were allowed by LHC through the impugned judgement and the notifications were set aside; however, the petitioners were set at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of the land for the construction of the dam by way of issuing a new notification under Section 4 of the Act.

During the hearing, former additional advocate general Barrister Qasim Chohan told the court that pursuant to the issuance of the preliminary notification, the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) approached the Punjab government with a request to shift the site for the construction of the dam about six kilometres upstream.

Subsequently, the Punjab government constituted a committee on Feb 4, 2011, to consider the request, which recommended the original site of the dam.

Another committee was committed to give a fresh recommendation vis-à-vis the feasibility of the site for construction of the dam, which also recommended the original site. The matter then ended up before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the preliminary notification, the addendum notification and the urgency notification were validly issued, but the award was not passed in accordance with the law.

Published in Dawn, September 13th, 2023