2024 C L C 996
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J
TAHIR JAMEEL----Petitioner
Versus
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Lahore and 2 others----Respondents
Writ Petition No.12812 of 2019, heard on 11th May, 2023.
(a) Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)---
----S.25-B(7) [as amended through Lahore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2013]---Exemption of land---Entitlement to---Petitioner (awardee) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging letter / correspondence issued by the respondent (Director Land Development, Lahore Development Authority) whereby he was advised to contact his vendors in order to recover the claimed compensation---Contention of the petitioner was that he was entitled for exemption of his acquired land and the same was granted pursuant to order passed by the concerned Commissioner, but subsequently the same had been given to some other person on the basis of an ex-parte decree, which had already been set aside---Validity---It was not discernable from the record as to whether any notice was served upon the petitioner or he was associated while conducting and finalizing Exemption proceedings in favour of decree-holders of ex-parte decree, which was subsequently set-aside---It was unimaginable that when the entire process of exemption was completed, how could the Award be cancelled even without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner merely on the basis of an ex-parte decree ---Any order passed against an aggrieved person, without providing him/her proper hearing or giving any reasons , is un-sustainable in the eye of law as the public functionaries are obliged to follow the principles of natural justice while deciding rights of the parties ---Petitioner had paid the entire development charges as directed by the LDA in the year 1998, hence, the process of subsequent exemption in favour of another party could not have been finalized without associating the earlier exemptee---Petitioner was entitled to due process, right to be treated fairly at all times, right to procedural fairness and right to procedural propriety---Petitioner, being a citizen of the Pakistan, had the right to fair procedure guaranteed constitutionally---High Court set-aside impugned letter / correspondence, declaring the same as illegal and without lawful Authority ; and remitted the matter to the concerned respondent (Director Land Development) with direction to redress petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law, after appreciating the available record as well as applicable law and contentions of the petitioner---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others 2017 SCMR 2010 ref.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 199 & 4---Constitutional powers of the High Court---Scope---High Court in view of special circumstances, has ample powers to give direction to public functionaries to act in accordance with law by virtue of Arts. 4 & 199 of the Constitution, and can set-aside an order passed by the Authorities which is not valid in the eye of law.
Muhammad Aslam v. Government of the Punjab, Services and General Administration, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Lahore through Secretary and 5 others 2003 PLC (C.S) 433 ref.
(c) Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)---
----S.25-B (7) [as amended through Lahore Development Authority (Amendment) Act (XXVI of 2013)]---Section 25-B (7) of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975---No restrospective effect---Section 25-B(7), was amended vide Lahore Development Authority (Amendment) Act (XXVI of 2013), which does not have any retrospective effect---An amendment in a section or its substitution which curtails substantive right or accrued right can not itself have a retrospective effect unless the Legislature elected to give it retrospective effect---Therefore, substituted or amended section of a Statute cannot obliterate accrued or vested rights ---In the present case, as S.25-B was added through an amendment in the year 2013 whereby substantive rights of the awardees were curtailed without giving it retrospective effect, therefore, said amendment could not affect the accrued rights before the amendment---High Court set-aside impugned letter / correspondence, declaring the same as illegal and without lawful authority ; and remitted the matter to the concerned respondent ( Director Land Development) with direction to redress petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law, after appreciating the available record as well as applicable law and contentions of the petitioner---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Zakaria H.A. Sattar Bilwani and another v. Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Range-II, Karachi 2003 SCMR 271; Mst. Sarwar Jan and others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others PLD 2012 SC 217; Muhammad Tariq Badr and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 314; Badshah Gul Wazir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others 2015 SCMR 43; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs Olympia Chemicals Ltd., Lahore 2021 PTD 1512; Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited Through Additional Director General Legal v. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority and others PLD 2021 Isl. 221; Kashif Mahmood v. Additional District Judge and others 2022 MLD 1762 and The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, Lahore v. Shazia Zafar 2022 PTD 1942 ref.
Aurangzeb Mirza and Muhammad Irfan Hanjra for Petitioner.
Barrister Hamza Amjad for Respondents.
No comments:
Post a Comment