— Protection of property rights — Acquisition of land without payment of compensation — Scope — Respondents were deprived of their land without compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Respondents filed a suit which was ultimately decreed — Supreme Court observed that the respondents must have spent money and time with regard to a case which should have never seen a court of law, provided the petitioners had abided by the Constitution and the law — Whilst counsel of private parties were accountable to them, and might resort to unnecessary litigation, this was not expected from the petitioners — The Government of Punjab and every employee of it, including those in the office of the Advocate-General ran on public funds, therefore, one expects a much higher standard from them — The government and its servants were there to serve the people — In this case, land was taken without compensating the respondents — Therefore, whilst declining leave and dismissing this petition, Supreme Court directed the Government of Punjab to pay to the owners of the land, requisite compensation, within a period of thirty days from the receipt of this order and in addition also pay to them one million rupees as costs. [2024 SCLR 40 = 2024 SCMR 22]

— Protection of property rights — Scope — Supreme Court observed several issues related to allotments in housing/commercial schemes — These issues included non-honoring of allotments, issuance of duplicate allotments to multiple individuals, and arbitrary cancellations by developers/builders — The Court expressed disappointment in the lack of legal or official procedures governing allotments, leaving the public unprotected — The Court noted that the absence of record-keeping for allotments creates hardships for allottees, who invest their life savings — The Attorney General of Sindh highlighted that current record-keeping occurs only when a sale or lease deed is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, and but, before this stage neither the government nor any official organization maintains the record of the allotments and of their ownership — In the age of information technology, the Court proposed electronic record-keeping, urging developers, builders, and authorities to transmit every transaction to a designated record keeper — This would not only protect the public but also prevent double book-keeping, curb the black economy, and facilitate economic documentation — The Court suggested a nominal fee for allottees to monitor transactions and emphasized that proper record-keeping would discourage unscrupulous practices, reduce litigation, and help courts in determining rights more efficiently — The Court highlighted that record-keeping could prevent duplicate allotments and arbitrary cancellations, ensuring transparency in property transactions — The Attorney General pledged to convey the Court’s concerns to the Government of Sindh, expressing confidence that the province could set an example for other governments to follow in addressing these issues. [PLR 2024 SC 8 = PLD 2024 SC 88 = 2023 SCP 367]