Professional Documents
Culture Documents
[Lahore]
Versus
Nawaz-ul-Haq Chohan v. The State and others 2003 SCMR 1597 rel.
Tanvir Iqbal A.A.-G. and Khan Abdul Rashid Khan DPG for Respondents.
JUDGMENT
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the
record. Besides the lawful reasons which weighed with the learned single Judge
in Chamber of this Court in dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition
with the findings that land subject of acquisition is needed for widening and
remodeling of Islamabad International Airport Road from Kutchery Chowk to
Flying Club, Rawalpindi, the acquisition under attack is undisputedly for public
purpose to widen the road on account of traffic congestion in the area. On
account of urgent nature of the work of widening and remodeling the road,
emergent powers by virtue of section 17 of the Act, 1894, were invoked,
dispensing other formalities. We were not impressed by the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant that she is being subjected to discrimination,
as owners of her adjoining property have already received the compensation for
their acquired strip of land. No example of pick and choose by the respondents
could be pointed out during hearing of the case. The alleged pick and choose,
otherwise is not imaginable/practicable because respondents have to
keep/maintain an alignment of the road. We were informed that acquisition of
strip of 19 feet in width would not obstruct light/air of the main building which
remains intact with a considerable open space left for this use of the appellant.
As regards letter No.RDA/MP&TE/F-245/680, dated 31-3-2006 addressed to
Garrison Commander HQ 10-Corps, Chakala, Rawalpindi, on the basis of this
letter, well-reasoned impugned judgment cannot be set aside, as the concession
shown to the appellant was subsequently withdrawn and does not create any
vested right at the cost of public development work.
Above reproduced part of the erstwhile judgment by the Apex Court left no
room to urge that since the action impugned in the writ petition was not itself
appealable thus Intra Court Appeal was competent. We have minutely
examined the respective stance of the parties and conclude that instant ICA is
not competent.
6. For the reasons noted above, instant appeal is dismissed being meritless and
not maintainable at law.