' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the respondents acquired the land measuring 262 acres situated in village Musallah, Fateh Singwala and Bhubatian, Tehsil and District Lahore, for development of a Labour Colony comprising of 3 to 5 Marlas plots, flats and education complex for industrial workers. The Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 24-3-1998, which was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the Punjab Gazette on 25-3-1998. The land measuring 36 Kanals 8 Marlas of the petitioners was also included in the said notification. Subsequent notification under section 17(4) & (6) was issued on 2-7-1998, which was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the Punjab Gazette on 3-7-1998. Thereafter corrigendum under section 17(4) and (6) was issued on 10-7-1998, which was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the Punjab Gazette on 11-7-1998, wherein it was found that establishment of colony for the industrial workers at Lahore had been wrongly published in the earlier notification instead of establishment of a Labour colony comprising plots, flats and education complex for industrial workers at Lahore. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award of the special land under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 24-9-1998. The possession of the acquired land was taken over by the Punjab Workers Welfare Board Lahore on 3-10-1998. Subsequently it appeared that the land measuring 22 Kanals 12 Marlas falling in Khasras Nos.1395, 1396, 1397 and 1400 situated in village Musallah, notified under section 4 of the 'Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been omitted in the subsequent Notification under section 17(4) & (6) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published on 3-7-1998 as well as in Corrigendum, dated 11-7-1998. Therefore, a Corrigendum to Notification under section 17(4) and (6) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21-8-1998, which was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the Punjab Gazette on 7-10-1998. It was subsequently found that in final Notification under section 17(4) (6) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land measuring 4 Kanals, 16 Marlas of the village Bhubatian and 5 Marlas of village Musallah has erroneously been included in excess while 1 Kanal, 5 Marlas of the village Bhubatian and 1 Kanal, 13 Marlas of the village Musallah has inadvertently been less incorporated and the total acquired land of the village Musallah has wrongly been calculated as 588 Kanals, 15 Marlas instead of 586 Kanals, 15 Marlas, therefore, another Corrigendum to Notification under section 17(4)(6) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued, which was issued on 2-4-1999, which was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the Punjab Gazette on 22-4-1999. The above omissions and errors were rectified by announcing the Supplementary Award under section 12-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 31-7-2001. The petitioners being aggrieved to the extent of the land measuring 14 Marlas of the petitioners which was acquired by the respondents through Corrigendum without notice to the petitioners and the Supplementary Award was also announced by the respondents without issuing notice to the petitioners, filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that impugned Corrigendum is without lawful authority as well as the Supplementary award on the well known principle of natural justice. He further urges that respondents have no lawful authority to take the land of the petitioners in violation of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, action of the respondents is without lawful authority, which is not in consonance with Article 4 of the Constitution read with Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution. He further submits that the petitioners are entitled to a market rate value qua the land in question, which was taken by the respondents through the Corrigendum and Supplementary Award was announced without keeping in view the market value of the land in question on 31-7-2001 from the date of issuing Corrigendum to Notification. The Land Acquisition Collector has no jurisdiction to issue Supplementary Award.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the land of the petitioners was acquired by the competent authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after completing all the formalities. The land of the petitioners measuring 36 Kanals 8 Marlas is mentioned in the notification issued by the competent authority under section 4 of the said Act on 24-3-1998. 14 Marlas of the land of the petitioners was not mentioned in the subsequent Notification issued by the competent authority under the provisions of section 17(4) & (6) of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award under section 11 on 24-9-1998. The petitioner has received, the compensation under protest and thereafter filed an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for enhancement of the compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector has forwarded the application of the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Referee Judge. The reference is pending adjudication before the competent Court with regard to the enhancement of the compensation of the land measuring 35 Kanals 14 Marlas. The petitioners have also claimed compensation of 14 Marlas which are mentioned in the original Notification as is evident from ground of the reference, which is at page 50 of this file, therefore, Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed. He further urges that respondents after completing all the legal formalities issued the Corrigendum to Notification under section 17(4) & (6) of the Act on 2-4-1999 and the omissions and errors were rectified by announcing the Supplementary Award by the Land Acquisition Collector under section 12-A of the Act on 31-7-2001, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have to file a reference for enhancement of the compensation under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further submits that the petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands and are estopped to file this Constitutional petition as the petitioners have already tiled a reference qua the major portion of his land before the competent authority, which is pending adjudication.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that mere pendency of the reference qua enhancement of the compensation with regard to the land measuring 35 Kanals, 14 Marlas is no ground to non-suit the petitioners as the petitioners have challenged the vires of the Corrigendum to the Notification issued by the respondents and consequently Supplementary Award in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties.-
(i) the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 25-3-1998 wherein the land of the petitioners measuring 36 Kanals 8 Marlas is also mentioned in the said Notification;
(ii) the Award was announced under section 11 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Collector on 24-9- 1998;
(iii) the possession of the land was taken over by the respondents on 3-10-1998;
(iv) the petitioners have received the compensation under protest as is evident from receipt which is attached with the report and parawise comments;
(v) the petitioners submitted an application for enhancement of the compensation which was forwarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Senior Civil Judge concerned. The reference is pending adjudication;
(vi) the petitioners have taken specific ground with regard to the land in question vide ground-f, which is at page 50 of this file. Same is reproduced hereunder:--- "That a piece of land of 14 Marlas comprising Khasra No,1373 has not been acquired and the same has been severed. There is no access provided thereto. And the fruit trees namely, grape fruit, and early fruiters are dying due to non-access and non-supply of water. The only source of water system has been acquired. Therefore, the petitioners claim the value of the land and fruit trees along with the compulsory acquisition allowance on account of severence @ claimed above."
(vii) the Corrigendum to the Notification was published under section 17(4) & (6) of the Act on 22- 4-1999;
(viii) the Supplementary Award was announced on 31-7-2001;
(ix) the petitioners challenged the vires of the same through the Constitutional petition on 15-8- 2002.
' The Corrigendum to Notification was published in the Extraordinary Punjab Gazette on 22-4-1999 whereas the Award was announced on 31-7-2001. The aforesaid Corrigendum to Notification brings the case in the area that it is notice to the public in the shape of that Notification, which was issued by the competent authority, which is termed as Notification. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:--- ' Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1978 SC 190, Saiyyid Abul A'la Maudoodi and others v. The Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 (W.P) Kar. 478; Alam Din and others v. Administrator Auqaf Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 2 others 1989 CLC 578, Mst. Sobia Hanif v. The Collector Lahore and others 1993 CLC 2073, Alam Din and another v.
Administrator Auqaf and others PLD 1983 Azad J&K 25.
'The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is employed to convey sense of making known. The word Notification implies that contents of declaration in question must be known to the public and not mere issuance of an order in the office of Government Authority. Meaning thereby the word "notify" means act of notifying or giving notice. The land in question along with the other land of the petitioners was mentioned in the Notification dated 24-3-1998, which was not mentioned in the subsequent Notification under section 17(4) & (6) of the Act and thereafter the competent authority has issued the Corrigendum to Notification under section 17(4) and (6) with regard to mis- description of small portion of land measuring 14 Marlas in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, to this extent Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down in the following judgments:--- ' Ghulam Zaman's case PLD 1984 Pesh. 35, Abdul Razzaq's case PLD 1986 Quetta 86, Ghulam Bhik's case PLD 1973 Lah. 617 and Dr. Muhammad Nasim Javaid's case PLD 1983 Lah.
542.
' It is also settled principle of law that the general allegation of mala fide is not sustainable in the eye of law unless and until specific allegations of mala fide be alleged as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- ' Saeed Ahmad's case PLD 1974 SC 151, Amanullah's case PLD 1990 SC 1092.
' It is settled principle of law that allegations of mala fide though easy to level are difficult to prove the burden whereof heavily lays on the petitioners as per law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:--- ' Muhammad Afzal Bhatti 1997 SCMR 296, Sree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa Janannadha Rao Pantulu Bahadur v. State of Andra Pradesh AIR 1960 Andrapradesh 343, Rashid Ahmad's case 1986 CLC 1841.
' It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. The petitioners have not challenged the Corrigendum to Notification for a long period till the Supplementary Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31-7-2001 and the petitioners have filed Constitutional petition on 15-8-2002, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any discretionary relief by filing the Constitutional petition after considerable delay as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:--- ' Khawaja Sharif's case PLD 1988 Lah. 725, Haji Saifullah's case PLD 1989 SC 166, Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236, Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1462, Sardar's case 1997 CLC 812.
'It is also settled principle of law that in case of acquisition of land, another principle which is attracted is that before an order passed by a public authority is struck down, it is duty of the Court to explore every possible explanation for its validity and examine the entire field of powers conferred on the authority in pursuance of which impugned order has been passed. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down in the following judgments:--- ' Lahore Improvement Trust's case PLD 1971 SC 811, Ali Muhammad's case 2004 MLD 1182.
' The land ' acquisition Collector has announced the Supplementary Award after issuing/publishing the Corrigendum to Notification under section 17(4) & (6), therefore, petitioners have alternative remedy to file a reference for enhancement of the compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the competent authority/competent Court, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC 246. It is also a good ground not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners in view of the pendency of the reference before the Civil Court keeping in view ground-f of the reference, which is mentioned above as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Tanbir Ahmad Siddiky v. Province of East Pakistan and others PLD 1968 SC 185.
7 . In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition is not maintainable and the same is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. In case the petitioners avail the alternative remedy under the provisions of the law then the competent authority/competent Court, of course, shall decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations of this Court.