ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court suspended the Lahore High Court (LHC)’s judgment on Ravi Riverfront Urban Development Project, and allowed RUDA and the allied agencies to continue to work on the land, which it has acquired so far.
A two-judge bench, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan and comprising Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, on Monday, heard the Punjab government’s appeal against the LHC single judge Justice Shahid Karim’s order. The bench granted leave to appeal to examine the points raised by the Punjab government.
The Environment Protection Agency and the allied agencies are directed to file the assessment report within one month.
At the onset of the hearing, Additional Advocate General Akhtar Javed contended that they were not party in the petition on the basis of that the judgment was delivered by the LHC. He argued that the Intra-Court Appeal was not filed against as in many issues the remedy was not available in the ICA.
Will approach SC over Ravi Riverfront project verdict: PM Imran
Akhtar said that the LHC has exceeded to its jurisdiction, which is against the law, adding the suo moto power is available only to the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. He further argued that in the highly technical and policy matters the high courts mostly do not interfere.
He informed that 95 percent compensation has been paid to land owners, which is acquired for the project. Therefore, the majority of the land owners have not challenged the acquisition. He said only two percent persons who have challenged the RUDA notifications are not agriculturalists but running housing societies.
According to the detailed judgment of the LHC; the Master Plan is the foundational document under the RUDA Act, 2020 and all schemes follow the Master Plan. The RUDA has failed to prepare an independent Master Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2020 and any further schemes prepared in the absence of a Master Plan are unlawful.
Section 4 of the Amendment Ordinance is unconstitutional being in contravention of Article 140A of the Constitution.
Consequently, section 6 in the original Act, 2020 stand revived. As a necessary corollary, any master planning and preparation of schemes by RUDA, in the absence of an agreement with the local government concerned, is illegal.
Section 6(xxxiv), 18(2), 29, 30, 31 of the Act, 2020 are held to be unconstitutional.
The Amendment Ordinance fails to comply with the pre-conditions mentioned in Article 128 of the Constitution and hence is unconstitutional. It is struck down.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be read down in such a manner that no acquisitions of agricultural and cultivable farmland can be done by the Collector as the provisions of the Act, 1894 offends Article 9 and 14 of the Constitution. Any acquisition of agricultural land can only take place after a legal framework has been put in place by making necessary amendments in the statute.
It is held that environmental impact assessment and an approval by EPA has to precede the commencement of process of acquisition by the collector under Section 4 of the Act, 1997 is a law within the contemplation of Article 24(2) of the Constitution for the purpose of just compensation. Since this was not done, the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 are struck down.
The collector of Sheikhupura and Lahore failed to follow procedural formalities prior to issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and the notification so issued are struck down being ultra vires on this ground too.
The EIA prepared by the RUDA and submitted to the EPA for approval is held ultra vires on the ground that it does not conform to the Punjab Environmental Protection (Registration of Environmental Consultants) Regulations, 2017.
The government of Punjab is directed to issue a notification regarding commencement of the Regulations within one month.
The loan borrowed by RUDA offends section 26 of the Act, 2020 as it fails to comply with the provision of the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1914. The amount of loan procured by the RUDA shall be reimbursed to the government of Punjab within two months of this judgment. The government of Punjab is directed to initiate generally the process of legislation for bringing the provisions of the Act, 1894 in conformity with the constitutional mandate and in particular to provide for acquisition of agricultural and farmlands as a distinct category.
The Punjab government appeal said that the high court has not considered the fact while passing the impugned order that the subject matter of the writ petition along with connected petitions have lost their efficacy upon the promulgation of RUDA (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021.
The petitions could not be entertained on this wrong interpretation that it is usurping the powers of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, which extends its tentacles only to the metropolitan areas of Lahore, whereas RUDA was to extended the area specified in master plan of the authority comprising upon different districts.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.