The policy and moral basis for land acquisition in Pakistan remains highly contentious, benefiting from legislation that was established under British rule and has not kept up-to-date with contemporary socio-economic and constitutional norms. Central to the controversy is the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the “Act”)—a British-era law that forms the governing legislation for the State to seize private land in the exercise of the doctrine of eminent domain. Land acquisition as a function of governance for the purposes of supporting advancement remains a legitimate function of government but in application in Pakistan tends to pose serious questions about due process, due compensation, transparency, and the forced displacement of vulnerable communities—concerns that remain a source of legal, moral, and human rights controversy.
The Act, although founded on colonial law, has also attracted criticism for its lack of clear definitions for 'public purpose' and adequate procedural protections. There is a lack of transparency in the process, and Sections 17 and 5 of the Act have allowed the State to bypass hearings in emergency purchases, usually to the detriment of marginalised communities. The big-ticket purchases—chiefly along urban expansion edges—have resulted in the destruction of forests, the drainage of groundwater levels, and permanent harm to wetlands. Cropped areas that used to be high in production are being converted into industrial or commercial space at a fast rate, eroding food security in the region. This ecological cost has not been factored sufficiently into purchase decisions.
Constitutional Safeguards and Legal Challenges
Article 24 of the Pakistan Constitution (the “Constitution”) assures the right to property to the citizens under the condition that the government may acquire it only for a public purpose or in consideration of fair compensation. But courts have interpreted the phrase “public purpose” in an expansive way—varying from public dwelling to urban renewal. This expansive interpretation enables the government as well as private entities backed by government patronage to misuse this provision.
For instance, in the case of Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (fgehf), Islamabad v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa, the Supreme Court upheld government officials' acquisition for residential purposes as fulfilling the test of “public purpose.” However, in the case of Malir Development Authority v. Bahria Town (2018 ) (the “Bahria Town case”), the Court invalidated land transfers between a public body and a private developer on the grounds that the acquisitions lacked transparency and real public interest. The Court levied a fine of PKR 460 billion for the unjustified use of acquisition powers for personal benefit. However, the judicial rulings have reflected the inconsistency in balancing interest in the development of the state and the right to property. In this Bahria Town case, the Supreme Court raised irregularity in the process of acquisition and emphasised the constitutional significance of the due process.
The Orange Line Metro Train Project, a BRI initiative, was criticised for not providing sufficient compensation to homeowners impacted. Payments of PKR 1 million per room only equaled a portion of the market price
The RUDA Case: Unpacking the Ravi Urban Development Project
The case of the Ravi Urban Development Authority (“RUDA”) presents a compelling tale of law, governance, and public resistance. Initiated by the Punjab Government in 2020 to develop a new city along the Ravi River, RUDA was authorised through the RUDA Act, 2020 (the “RUDA Act”). The Lahore High Court in Public Interest Law Association v. EPA Punjab, found a number of sections of the RUDA Act to be unconstitutional in 2021. Justice Shahid Karim observed that RUDA had failed to provide a Master Plan, carry out environmental studies or impact assessments, or consult the affected stakeholders, rendering the acts of the authority in contravention of constitutional guarantees relating to due process, environmental rights, and transparency. In his dissenting notes and judicial observations, Justice Shahid Karim has underscored that unregulated land acquisition causes urban sprawl, upsets the balance between ecology and urbanisation, and marginalises agrarian society. He has called for incorporating environmental impact assessments and obligatory consultations with affected cultivators in accordance with the requirement to adhere to Article 9 (right to life) and Article 14 (dignity of man) of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, in 2022 the Supreme Court permitted RUDA to proceed in places that already received compensation. Legal resistance persists. Farmers and NGOs complain of forced evictions and low compensation, while there have also been criminal cases against protesters. For Human Rights Watch (2022), the project illustrates how land purchase legislation is used to displace vulnerable communities in the absence of due process.
Recent Developments: RUDA and Beyond
Recently, RUDA persists in encountering legal opposition and public unrest. There have been a series of contempt petitions filed in the Lahore High Court for failure to adhere to its previous orders. In addition, a bill introduced in the Punjab Assembly aims to make amendments to the RUDA Act to provide for independent monitoring and social impact assessments—developments possibly driven by both internal pressure and foreign watchdogs.
Another recent case involves the Gulberg-M2 Expressway, a mega infrastructure project in Lahore. As of February 2025, nearly 600 families have filed petitions against the government, claiming forced evictions and compensation based on outdated DC rates. Hearings are underway at the Lahore High Court, and the outcome could establish important precedents regarding compensation benchmarks.
Other Notable Cases: Gujjar Nullah, Lyari Expressway, and Orange Line
In Karachi, the anti-encroachment operations along the Gujjar and Orangi Nullahs demonstrate how the RUDA Act has not only been employed for infrastructure purposes but also for urban “cleansing.” Thousands of residents, including many with legitimate leases, have been forcibly displaced without resettlement in the name of flood management. The same strategies have been followed in the case of the Lyari Expressway project, the courts stepping in only after the destruction was largely done.
In Lahore, the Orange Line Metro Train Project, a BRI initiative, was criticised for not providing sufficient compensation to homeowners impacted. Payments of PKR 1 million per room only equaled a portion of the market price. Asian Development Bank guidelines for resettlement were not implemented, showing the gap between the obligations of the state and its delivery.
Procedural Weaknesses and the Role of the Collector
Land acquisition starts in the form of a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act, objections thereon, the Section 6 declaration, and subsequently an award under Section 11. The role of the Collector remains pivotal, determining compensation and facilitating the transfer. But the powers of the Collector are still administrative in nature and not judicial. In spite of that, their decisions are hardly ever set aside without long-drawn litigation.
Compensation tends to be computed using DC rates that do not represent existing market realities. In Muhammad Khalil v. Faisal M.B. Corporation (the “Dadhocha Dam case”), the Court held a land auction grossly undervalued to Rs. 96,635 an acre when compensation at the DC rate was Rs. 606,400 and market value was in excess of Rs. 1 million. This case illustrates how landowners are systemically disadvantaged.
Pakistan's existing land acquisition system favours the interests of the State as well as private developers over the people—most notably the poor and disadvantaged
Section 17 in the Act enables “urgency acquisitions” and was possibly the most abused provision. In the Dadhocha Dam case, even after a delay of a decade, the government used Section 17(4) to expedite the process in a bypass of due process. Though the Supreme Court validated the acquisition, the case uncovered the exploitative nature of the urgency provisions.
Comparative Legal Reforms: India, UK, and Australia
India repealed the 1894 Act and enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act in 2013. The law authorises 70-80% consent of the impacted landowners, imposes social impact assessments, and fixes market value-based compensation for 4 times the average for rural and 2 times for urban land.
In the UK case of James v. United Kingdom ("ECHR"), eminent domain was upheld to serve broader public interest, including social justice, and not only economic development. Likewise, in Australia's case of Minister for Public Works v. Duggan, the court declared an acquisition without a clear public purpose invalidating the fact as the development cannot happen at the expense of individual rights. The Act, which has its foundation in the conduct of the colonisers, has also been criticised for the lack of definition in 'public purpose' and for a lack of adequate technical protections. The process is not transparent and Sections 17 and 5 of the Act have made it possible for the State to circumvent the hearings in cases of urgency usually at the cost of vulnerable communities.
Recommendations for Legal Reform in Pakistan
To harmonise land acquisition into contemporary legal and moral standards, Pakistan needs to:
- Reform the RUDA Act in order to unambiguously define “public purpose.”
- Mandating social and environmental impact assessments.
- Substitute DC rates by market data-based independent valuation standards.
- Mandate the consent of a majority of the landowners in the case of private or semi-private bodies.
- Create a Land Acquisition Oversight Authority to monitor compliance and resolve disputes.
- Implement statutory resettlement and rehabilitation schemes in the form of housing and income support.
As noted in the reference report, the phrase 'public purpose' remains ambiguously defined in the Act, which results in arbitrariness in interpretation. This has resulted in the case of purchases termed as for 'development' proving to be more beneficial to private parties than the public. As previously stated, the mass purchases—particularly along areas of urban expansion—have resulted in the destruction of forests, the exhaustion of groundwater, and permanent destruction of wetlands. Areas that are previously fertile for the production of food are being converted to industrial or commercial lands at a quick rate, harming local food security. It has not successfully factored in the environmental cost in acquisition.
Conclusion
Pakistan's existing land acquisition system favours the interests of the State as well as private developers over the people—most notably the poor and disadvantaged. The RUDA and Bahria Town schemes provide examples of the potential and risks of unregulated eminent domain. Legal reform should strive to balance the scales: guaranteeing that the process of development is inclusive, legal, and fair. The Act itself, which stems from colonial law, has also drawn criticism for having vague definitions of 'public purpose' and lacking adequate procedural protections. The process itself is not transparent, and Sections 17 and 5 of the Act have facilitated the State to proceed without conducting hearings in cases of emergency acquisition, often to the detriment of marginalised communities.
Through legislative initiative and judicial supervision, Pakistan can establish a system that allows for the expansion of infrastructure without sacrificing constitutional guarantees for the environment and for human decency.