Summary Lahore High Court sets aside Board of Revenue order in Mangla Dam affecThe Lahore High Court has set aside a Board of Revenue order in the Mangla Dam affectees case and barred the eviction of petition
LAHORE (Muhammad Ashfaq) - The Lahore High Court (LHC) has delivered a significant ruling in the long-running case involving people affected by the construction of the Mangla Dam, setting aside an order issued by the Board of Revenue and directing authorities to decide the matter afresh within four months.
Justice Muzammil Akhtar Shabbir issued a four-page written judgement, holding that key aspects of the dispute had not been properly considered by the Board of Revenue while dismissing a review petition in 2017.
The court also ordered that the petitioners should not be dispossessed from their land until a fresh decision is taken on the matter.
According to the judgement, counsel for the petitioners argued that they were among those displaced by the Mangla Dam project and that the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) had issued certificates confirming the purchase of government land and payment of its full price.
The petitioners subsequently approached the district collector in Vehari seeking transfer of ownership rights, but their request was rejected. Their lawyer informed the court that the High Court had already remanded the matter to the Board of Revenue through an order passed in 1999 for reconsideration.
Justice Shabbir observed that two important issues had been identified in the case, but these were overlooked when the Board of Revenue rejected the review petition.
The first issue concerned the fact that ownership rights had already been granted to 59 similarly placed affectees. The judgement noted that this was one of the reasons why the matter had earlier been remanded to the Board of Revenue.
The second issue related to a relaxation granted by the then Governor of West Pakistan regarding restrictions on the allotment of land situated in a prohibited zone. According to the court, the Board of Revenue's 2017 order failed to discuss or address either of these important aspects.
During the proceedings, the government's counsel maintained that the petitioners were not entitled to ownership rights because the land fell within a prohibited zone. It was also argued that the Director General had offered alternative land to the petitioners, but they had declined the proposal without justification and were therefore not entitled to any relief.
However, the High Court held that the Board of Revenue had not adequately examined the relevant issues and consequently declared its order void.
The court remanded the matter back to the Board of Revenue and directed it to issue a fresh decision within four months. Until the matter is finally resolved, the petitioners have been granted protection against eviction from the disputed land.
