SC suspends BHC judgment on DHA Act

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday suspended the judgment of the Balochistan High Court (BHC) that had declared several provisions of the DHA Act 2015 unconstitutional.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Qazi Amin Ahmed and Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, granted leave to appeal to a petition filed by the Defence Housing Authority, Quetta, against the Balochistan High Court verdict.

A full court of the Balochistan High Court comprising all its five judges had declared several provisions of the DHA Act 2015 unconstitutional. The High Court had declared that the DHA was like a non-government agency and, therefore, acquisition of property by it would violate the constitutional right to property.

It had also held that the DHA could not be allowed to develop its own master plans or perform other municipal functions. The power of the Authority to declare a specified area in which development could be carried out was also held unconstitutional. The effect of the judgment was that it had paralysed all development work in DHA Quetta.

On Tuesday, Makhdoom Ali Khan, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner DHA Quetta, submitted that Article 24 of the Constitution permitted acquisition of property for a public purpose. He submitted that the Balochistan High Court had itself acknowledged that the society was working in the interests of the people when many other societies were doing poor quality work. He submitted that the statute authorised the DHA to exercise municipal functions and develop Master Plans in areas procured, purchased, leased or acquired by it. The Balochistan High Court had not appreciated this aspect of the case, Makhdoom Ali Khan contended.

The counsel submitted that the major premise of the Full Court judgment was that the Defence Housing Authority Act 2015 was in conflict with the Land Acquisition Act. He further contended that the High Court had incorrectly concluded that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was a federal law and that it being in conflict with the DHA Act 2015, the DHA Act was unconstitutional as per articles 141 to 143 of the Constitution.

He submitted that since the Government of India Act, 1935, the Land Acquisition Act has been a provincial issue and not a federal statute. There was, therefore, no conflict between the federal and provincial statutes. No article of the Constitution was, thus, violated. The court observed that a case for grant of leave had been made out as these were important questions of law, which required consideration.

The counsel urged that the entire operation of the DHA was paralysed and its work stopped, causing it and those allotted land there tremendous hardships. The court therefore suspended the full court judgment of the Balochistan High Court.