ISLAMABAD
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that landowners who accepted compensation in accordance with the law at the time their land was acquired are not entitled to additional compensation merely because the value of the land was subsequently enhanced.
The court declared that a Supreme Court judgment directing payment of enhanced compensation to such landowners was not in accordance with law. It also set aside judgments of the Supreme Court, Peshawar High Court and Lahore High Court concerning compensation for land acquired for public purposes.
A 45-page judgment authored by Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan was issued in the case. Justice Arshad authored an additional note, while agreed with the judgment.
The court observed that compulsory acquisition of land must be accompanied by fair compensation in accordance with law. It held that ensuring uniform compensation for all landowners was the responsibility of the legislature, while the role of the courts was to enforce the law.
In his additional note, clarified that any additional amount already paid to the landowners would not be recovered.
According to the judgment, the land in question had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for various public purposes, including defence projects, educational institutions, grid stations and motorways.
Some landowners approached the courts seeking enhancement of compensation.
After compensation was subsequently enhanced, those who had already received compensation also initiated litigation seeking payment of the increased amount.
The high courts had ruled in favour of such landowners and ordered additional payments. However, the Federal Constitutional Court held that landowners who had accepted compensation at the time of acquisition could not subsequently claim an enhanced amount on the basis of a later increase in the value of the land.
The court accordingly set aside the impugned judgments and held that compensation already lawfully received at the time of acquisition could not be retrospectively enhanced merely because other landowners subsequently secured higher compensation through litigation.
