LAHORE – The Lahore High Court has held that the acquisition of private land for commercial purposes without public interest is unjustified.
Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh of LHC issued a detailed nine-page written judgment on a plea filed by Olympia Chemical Private Limited, which sought the acquisition of 495 kanals of private land for the expansion of its chemical factory in Sargodha.
The court also deemed certain provisions of the colonial-era land acquisition Act to be, prima facie, in conflict with the Constitution of Pakistan.
The company had approached the Land Acquisition Collector after failing to reach an agreement with private landowners. However, government agencies opposed the acquisition, stating in their evaluation report that the request was made solely for commercial purposes and not in the public interest. According to the report, the company’s request to acquire private land was baseless.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Olympia Chemical, established decades ago in Pakistan, had previously been allotted over 274 acres of land by the Punjab government for its factory. On this basis, the company requested the government’s assistance in acquiring an additional 495 kanals for its factory expansion, citing the Land Acquisition Act, which permits the acquisition of private land for public or governmental purposes.
However, Assistant Advocate General Punjab, in light of the constitutional framework, particularly Article 24, argued that the request was purely for commercial gain and not for the public good.
In the judgment, Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh emphasized that Article 23 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the legal right to acquire and hold property. Article 24 ensures the protection of citizens’ property, stating that private land can only be acquired for public purposes. The judge further pointed out that the Constitution does not allow land acquisition purely for commercial reasons.
Justice Sheikh also observed that the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, a colonial-era law, could only be invoked in accordance with Article 268 of the Constitution. He noted that the Act’s provisions were prima facie inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of property protection, particularly under Article 24.
The court further ruled that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any public interest in the proposed land acquisition.
