







|

|
|
|
20 January 2004
|
Tuesday
|
27 Ziqa'ad 1424
|
Land cannot be de-acquired: SC
By Our Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD, Jan 19: The Supreme Court on Monday accepted seven appeals filed by Dewan Salman Fibres and its allied companies regarding a land dispute in the NWFP, suspending the Peshawar High Court's decision in this regard passed on Nov 10, 1997.
The Supreme Court's bench, comprising Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Justice Javed Iqbal and Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, ruled that land, once acquired for a specific purpose and distributed for the same, could not be de-acquired.
Mohammad Akram Sheikh, lawyer representing Dewan Salman Fibres, termed the Sarhad Development Authority's decision politically motivated, saying the land was acquired from relatives of former NWFP chief minister Sardar Mehtab Khan Abbasi.
He said the whole exercise of de-acquiring the land was motivated by "extraneous considerations," adding his client had acquired land in accordance with rules and regulations to set up industry in the area.
He argued that out of the 2,629 kanals of land, the Sarhad Development Authority cancelled the allotment of 1,200 kanals in possession of Dewan Salman Fibres, contending that it was not being utilised for the purposes for which it was allotted.
The lawyer stated that under the rules, the Sarhad Development Authority could not cancel the allotment without giving any notice, adding it could not de-acquire the land.
He also presented record, arguing SDA had also taken other decisions in haste, saying before cancelling the land in question, the authority had allotted the same land to some prominent people, who, he said, did not even qualify for any allotment.
Sheikh Akram also argued that "not a single notice" was issued to Dewan Salman Fibre for any violation in this regard. He said because of the litigation and cancellation orders by the SDA, his clients had suffered huge losses, adding the foreign component of an investment was delayed.
Chaudhry Mushtaq and Abdul Rauf Roheela represented the SDA, arguing that the land allotment was cancelled as it was not being used for the purposes it was allotted.
|