The Lahore High Court on Thursday dismissed petitions against the acquisition of land by the Punjab government. The government plans to establish a garments city in Sheikhupura.
The court had reserved verdict last week after hearing arguments from the petitioners’ counsel and the government. The court had also stayed the process of land acquisition.
The Garments City Anjuman-i-Mutasareen had filed the petition, among others. They said the government was acquiring 1,475 acres for the project without protecting the rights of petitioners.
They said the government had issued two notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 but the land was in fact being acquired for private use by the Punjab Industrial Estate and Management Company. They said the government did not follow due process for land acquisition.
They said the government had not held an inquiry, as required under Section 40 of the concerned Act.
The petitioners asked the court to set aside the notifications issued for acquisition of the land.
The acting advocate general had opposed the petitions. He said all relevant rules had been followed in acquiring the land. He also objected to the locus standi of the petitioners saying the Anjuma-i-Mutasareen was not a registered organisation.
LHC asks petitioner to approach PEMRA
The Lahore High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition against “unnecessary media” coverage of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s trial. The court told the petitioner, Feroze Shah Gilani, to approach the Pakistan Electronic Media Authority (PEMRA) instead.
LHC Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said opinion could not be given in sub judice matters.
He said this was important to maintain the judiciary’s independence. He said according to the PEMRA Ordinance, there was a limit to freedom of expression. He said the special court holding Musharraf’s trial could exercise its powers regarding the concerned issue. The court told the petitioner to go directly to PEMRA with his grievance.
Gilani had said the media was influencing court proceedings by predicting the outcome of the trial. He said this was tantamount to contempt of court and media outlets committing such offences should be punished accordingly.
Bandial said that several steps could be taken without charging the concerned media outlets with contempt of court.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 17th, 2014.