Peshawar: Peshawar High Court (PHC) has given the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government six months to address the industrial estate in Swabi and housing schemes on agricultural land in Charsadda, as reported on July 25.
As per details, a bench led by Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Syed Arshad Ali handled seven similar petitions from residents of Swabi and Charsadda. The court instructed the chief secretary to organise a high-level meeting with senior officials, including the Senior Member Board of Revenue (SMBR), the secretaries of the food, agriculture, and industries departments, and the Director General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This meeting is to discuss these issues and make policy decisions to address the petitioners’ concerns with the provincial cabinet’s approval.
The bench noted that petitioners, who own agricultural land, are challenging the acquisition of their property for industrial zones and housing schemes. The court highlighted that the KP government had issued various notifications prohibiting commercial activities on agricultural land. The bench expressed concern that, despite the government’s restrictions, large areas of agricultural land are being converted into industrial and residential projects without proper oversight. The lack of coordination between government departments and the absence of a uniform policy on this matter were criticised.
The court also pointed out that SIDB had issued a notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) from the EPA. This oversight, combined with the government’s complacency, has led to significant concerns about the misuse of agricultural land.
The bench urged the provincial government to use the complaints from the petitioners as an opportunity to take corrective measures and effectively address these issues. In the petitions, Iftaullah Khan and others contested the acquisition of 908 kanals and 15 marlas of land in Swabi for an industrial estate. They argued that a substantial portion of this land was fertile and productive, and there was plenty of barren land available.
The court had appointed a commission led by Advocate Ahmad Sultan Tareen to inspect the land in question. The commission reported that most of the acquired land was productive, contrary to what was claimed. SIDB and other respondents defended the project, stating it would create local jobs and that affected landowners would be compensated according to the law. They also noted that petitioners could seek further compensation through the appropriate legal channels.
