' This order will dispose of Writ Petition No,2489 of 2001, Umar Farooq v. Government of Punjab and others.
2. Facts leading to the present writ petition are that petitioner and his brothers Ghulam Siddique, Muhammad Hanif and Ahmad Bakhsh (deceased) were owners of 50-K, 13 Marlas land situated in Khata No,107 of village Patti Kofli Tehsil and District D.G. Khan. The Government of the Punjab vide a notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquired land measuring 106-K, 2-M of the same village including land of the petitioner and his brothers.
3. The average sale price of the land was assessed as Rs,40,000 per Marla but the same was not offered to the petitioner or his brothers or anybody else.
4. Nabi Bukhsh son of Lal whose land was also acquired was denied payment. He filed Writ Petition No,3609 of 1997 which was finally disposed of by my learned brother Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J. On 17- 2-2000 directing the respondents to make payment in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed through this writ petition that respondents be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner and his brothers for the land acquired by the respondent after completing all legal formalities.
5. In the report and parawise comments dated 29-5-2001 submitted on 4-6-2001 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Highway Department D.G. Khan/respondent No,4, it is admitted that land of petitioner and his brothers was acquired. It is admitted that petitioner was not compensated since 29-5-1996 i,e, the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act; it is also admitted that the case for compensation was under process and measures are being taken by the Secretary (S&W) for arrangement of funds for payment from D.G. Khan Cement Factory/ respondent No,
1. It is further admitted that notification under section 4 was published on 29-5-1996 and price of the land was assessed Rs,40,000 per Marla. Notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was prepared and sent to the Commissioner, D.G. Khan for approval, which was returned with the remarks that funds should be placed at the disposal of District Collector, D.G.
Khan for disbursement. The learned A.A.-G. While appearing on behalf of the respondent today produced the letter dated 2-1-2004 from the Executive Engineer, Provincial Highway Division, Multan addressed to D.C.O. D.G. Khan, vide which cheque of value of Rs,1,15,79,208 bearing No,D934091/D09341, dated 15-12-2003 on account of compensation of land acquired by the Punjab Highway Department for construction of D.G. Khan Cement Factory Road, for disbursement to the genuine landowners. It is further stated by the learned A.A.-G. That the amount has been transferred to the account of D.C.O. For disbursement the amount amongst the landowners, whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, states that the D.C.O. Has not given a single penny to the landowners.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the respondent- department had failed to perform their legal obligations since 29-5-1996 when the land of the petitioner and his brothers was acquired. Again despite the direction given to the respondent in Writ Petition No,3609 of 1997 by this Court on 7-9-2000, the petitioner was ignored by them. Now again since 2-1-2004 the amount of compensation deposited in the PLS Account of. D.C.O. Has not been disbursed by him to the landowners. This shows the inefficiency of the respondent/Department as well as of the D.C.O., D.G. Khan. It is the duty of the public functionaries to act strictly in accordance with law and perform their duties with due diligence. This Court has ample powers to direct the public functionaries to perform their duties as laid down in H.M. Rizvi's case,PLD 1981 SC 612.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that, this writ petition is allowed, with costs. D.C.O., D.G.
Khan is directed to make payment to the landowners according to the value already assessed, within one month of the date of the judgment. The respondents, if however, are not satisfied with the award of compensation, had every right to challenge the same in an appropriate forum in accordance with law.