Abdullah Khan:
The Land Acquisition Act of 1894, an artifact of British rule, still shapes how land is taken and transferred in Pakistan. Introduced by the colonial administration, the law was crafted to help the British consolidate authority, extract wealth, and strengthen political control. From its inception, the Act empowered the state to dispossess local populations. A simple declaration of “public purpose” allowed the colonial government to claim almost any tract of land, pushing communities off the property their families had lived on for generations. Although framed in the language of development, the hidden intent was to weaken indigenous autonomy and reinforce the colonial state’s dominance.
The structure of the law makes these motives unmistakable. “Public purpose” is defined so broadly that the state can fit almost any project within its scope. The acquisition process is entirely state-driven: the same authority that seeks the land also determines its value. Compensation is typically inadequate because the Act treats land as a market commodity rather than a source of identity, heritage, and emotional attachment. Most critically, the Act gives the government the right to take land even against an owner’s will, an authority designed by the British to limit resistance and speed up dispossession.
After 1947, Pakistan retained the Act almost unchanged, creating a troubling irony: a law once used by colonial rulers is now applied by an independent state to its own citizens. Over the decades, various institutions, officials, and powerful groups have relied on the Act to seize land for schemes that often provide little genuine public benefit. Some of the most contentious cases involve real-estate and housing projects linked to influential sectors, including those associated with state power. These initiatives are frequently described as development or welfare, yet countless accounts from across the country reveal a different reality—families forced to surrender their land, compensation delayed or undervalued, and ordinary people unable to challenge the machinery of the state. For many, losing land means losing their last remaining connection to ancestral roots.
Pakistan’s courts have repeatedly raised concerns about the misuse of this colonial law. The judiciary has criticized governments for stretching the meaning of “public purpose” to justify acquisitions that ultimately benefit private or elite interests. In the 1973 case Imtiaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan, the Supreme Court warned against using emergency provisions under Section 17 merely to bypass public objections. Similarly, in Miss Sara v. Land Acquisition Collector (1989), the court pointed to rushed proceedings and flawed assessments. These rulings indicate that while the courts can intervene, the inherent biases built into the Act leave ample room for abuse.
Given its colonial origins and long record of exploitation, Pakistan urgently needs a new, democratic land acquisition framework. Any replacement must start by sharply limiting the definition of “public purpose,” allowing compulsory acquisition only for essential infrastructure, public services, or disaster-related needs, not for commercial housing projects or ventures serving elite interests. Land valuation should be handled by independent, certified professionals to ensure fair market-based compensation that acknowledges not only financial value but also social and emotional loss. Payments must be made before possession is taken and should include relocation assistance, livelihood support, and rehabilitation packages.
A modern law must also guarantee genuine public participation: communities should have full access to information, enough time to object, legal representation, and the right to appeal before an independent review body comprising civil society members, land specialists, and locally elected representatives, not only government officials. Emergency acquisition powers must be strictly regulated and allowed only in exceptional national crises under external oversight. Above all, any future legislation must recognise that land is deeply intertwined with history, dignity, and identity. A fair and transparent system is not just a legal requirement, it is a democratic necessity.
The writer is a student of LLB 7th Semester at BUITEMS. He can be reached at abdullahtakeover@gmail.com.
