AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--- Through this common Judgment I intend to dispose of all these 1st Appeals which have been preferred by the appellants against the orders passed by the Referee Court on reference preferred by the appellants which references were disposed of by the IInd Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, upholding the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The facts as has been pleaded in these Appeals are almost common except that in Appeals Nos.
15 to 19 of 2001, the 'Referee Court' has affirmed the Award by holding that the reference filed by WAPDA was barred by limitation. It has been contended by the learned for the appellants that the impugned orders have been passed overlooking the fact that the award which was impugned before the Referee Court was passed on the back of the appellants. He further urged that the learned Land Acquisition Officer has passed the Award pertaining to the lands which were 'bogus', 'exaggerated' and 'unutilized'. He further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer neither supplied for communicated the copy of the Award, which was passed by him on 3.5.1999. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel that the appellants acquired the knowledge of the award in collateral proceedings, which were filed by different Khatdars in the nature of Constitution petitions in this Court. In the said Collateral proceedings the appellants were directed to avail their remedy by approaching the Referee Court through reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. He, therefore, submits that the references were filed by the appellants before the District Judge, Sanghar on 24.4.2000 challenging the - award which references were transferred on jurisdictional ground to the District Judge, Nawabshah, who in turn had assigned all these references to be heard by the 11 Additional District Judge, Nawabshah.
3. I have directed the Additional A.G. To procure the record and in response to the direction the D.D.O. Nawabshah is present with the record. I have examined the record and it reflects that the appellants were put in possession of the land notified in the Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 15.11.1993 against proper acknowledgment of possession. It is also inconceivable that the possession, which has been taken over by the appellants, was without measurement. It is also inconceivable to accept the argument of the learned counsel that they are liable to pay compensation only in respect of the land which are utilized by them and are not bound to pay compensation for the lands which have been notified in the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Once the notification is issued and the departments are put in possession of the lands notified and the notification issued by the Sindh Government for acquiring the lands which are till date in filed, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to deny and or refuse compensation to different Khatedars who were dispossessed pursuant to the Notification issued by the Land Acquisition Officer the direction of the Government which Notifications are not in dispute. Under the provisions of Articles 4 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, no citizen can be denied and or deprived of his property without payment of compensation. In these proceedings admittedly these Khatedars have been deprived of their lands way back in 1993 and now at this point of time the appellants cannot take shelter under the garb that they have not utilized portion of lands challenging the very notifications pursuant to which they have been put in possession. What is most unfortunate is that these Government functionaries keep on dragging matters delaying payment of compensation to these Khatedars resulting accumulation of huge amount on account of additional compensation which they have to pay under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This aspect of the case has never been taken note of while filing proceedings against the award and or against the. Decision of the Referee Courts resulting in payment of huge amounts by the Department. Additionally, the appellants inspite of the fact that they admitted the Award is based on the lands notified are refusing payments on the ground that portions of these lands are not in actual utilization and or use of the appellants. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants have not resorted to the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting the Government for de-notifying such unutilized land. Once Khatedars are deprived of their lands they are entitled to compensation in terms of the Notification on the basis of which the Award has been made. The findings impugned in these proceedings by the Referee Court are lawful and do not warrant interference and as a result these Appeals merit dismissal.
4. In regard to the question of limitation, even if there is any finding on the issue of limitation is given it would not help the appellants as the points involved in all these proceedings is common as to whether the appellants can deny payment of compensation on the ground of non-utilization of the lands which has already been answered hereinabove, these appeals also merit dismissal on the above reasoning. .