Rights of Displaced Persons - Tarbela Dam Oustee Scheme

In Civil Petition No. 148-L of 2024, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the rights of a displaced person under the Tarbela Dam Oustee Scheme could be denied due to changes in the status of a prohibited area (2024 SCP 341). The Court ruled that once land was allotted under Section 10(4) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, to a displaced person, the subsequent expansion of a prohibited area could not retroactively affect the accrued rights. The petitioners, representing the Board of Revenue, Punjab, had sought to deny proprietary rights to the respondent based on such changes, but the Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the respondent’s entitlement to proprietary rights as per the original terms of the allotment.

Background:

The respondent’s father, Razi Khan, was displaced due to the Tarbela Dam project and was allotted land under the Tarbela Dam Oustee Scheme. However, due to civil litigation, possession of the original allotted land was delayed, leading to an alternate allotment in Tehsil Khanewal in 1981. Subsequently, Khanewal’s status changed from a Tehsil to a District, which resulted in the expansion of a "prohibited area" where land could not be allotted.

Despite the initial confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, that the land was free from encumbrances, the Board of Revenue later denied the respondent’s application for proprietary rights, citing the new status of Khanewal as a District. This decision was upheld by the Additional District Collector, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and the Board of Revenue. The respondent successfully challenged these orders in the Lahore High Court, which set aside the denial of proprietary rights. The petitioners then sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.

Key Issues:

Accrued Rights Under the Oustee Scheme: Whether the respondent's right to proprietary ownership of the allotted land could be denied due to subsequent changes in the status of the area as a prohibited zone.

Application of the Prohibited Zone Rule: Whether the expansion of the prohibited area after the original allotment could nullify the rights of a displaced person under the Scheme.

Constitutional Protection of Property Rights: Whether denying proprietary rights in these circumstances violated the fundamental right to property under Article 24 of the Constitution.

Court's Analysis:

Accrued Rights Under the Scheme: The Court emphasized that the respondent’s rights were based on the conditions prevailing at the time of the allotment, and these rights could not be altered retroactively. The land was initially deemed free from defects and encumbrances, and the allotment order under Section 10(4) of the Colonization Act conferred the right to proprietary ownership. The subsequent change in the status of Khanewal as a District and the expansion of the prohibited zone did not affect these accrued rights.

Inapplicability of the Prohibited Zone Rule: The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the respondent’s rights were voided due to the expansion of the prohibited area after Khanewal’s status change. It clarified that the relevant legal provisions and memoranda governing the Tarbela Oustee Scheme ensured that once land was allotted, it could not be cancelled or revoked based on subsequent changes. The land was free from restrictions at the time of allotment, and the subsequent classification of the area as "prohibited" did not apply retroactively.

Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court held that denying the respondent’s proprietary rights would constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property in violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection against compulsory acquisition of property without lawful compensation. The State’s exercise of eminent domain in acquiring property for public purposes must be accompanied by just compensation, and the respondent’s claim for proprietary rights was part of that compensation.

Court's Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the respondent was entitled to proprietary rights over the allotted land under the original terms of the Tarbela Dam Oustee Scheme. The expansion of the prohibited zone due to the change in Khanewal’s status did not affect the respondent's accrued rights. The denial of proprietary rights violated the respondent’s constitutional protection of property under Article 24.

Contact Us:

For legal assistance on issues related to land allotments and protection of property rights, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP. Our expert team provides comprehensive legal guidance on land disputes, constitutional property protections, and administrative law matters.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.