1. MUZAFFAR ALI, J.---This first appeal has impugned the judgment/order, dated 22-6-2004, passed by the learned District Judge/ Referee Court, Gilgit.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are that, the appellants have acquired one Kanal of cultivated land owned by the respondent No.2 and the Collector Land Acquisition (respondent No.1) passed the Award No.SO(R)-1/789-800/98, dated 23-6-1998. The amount of compensation paid to the respondent No.2 (owner of the land) on 8-4-2000. The respondent No.2 submitted an application on 25-5-2001, before the Collector Land Acquisition for grant of 8% compound interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the awarded amount of @ Rs.2,02,250.
3. The Collector Land Acquisition (respondent No.1) granted the application under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and passed the supplementary Award No.SO(R)-1(Jutial), 22-18-2000/2001, dated 24-9-2001 and awarded Rs.30,111 compound interest in favour of respondent No.2 (landowner) calculating the period from the date of passing the Award No.SO(R)-1/798-800/98, dated 23-6-1998 to the day of payment of the same to the respondent No.2, dated 8-4-2000.
4. The appellants assailed the above supplementary award by submitting the objections petition before the learned District Judge/ Referee Court through Collector Land Acquisition and the learned Referee Court rejected the objections by impugned order, hence this appeal.
5. I heard the counsel for the parties, learned Advocate-General was represented by Mr. Shah Baz Khan, District Attorney, who supported the version of the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants emphasized mainly on two points, that (a) the petition under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the respondent No.2 was time-barred as such could not be entertained, but the Collector Land Acquisition has entertained the same in utter violation of law and (b) the supplementary award dated 24-9-2001 was passed by the Collector, without hearing the appellants as such the same is violative of natural justice and liable to be set aside.
7. I have considered the points raised by both the learned counsel for the parties, in the light of relevant laws and facts of the case. The case in hand is governed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
8. The Legislature has legislated the special law, for acquiring a land owned by a citizen of the country, if the land is required for public purposes and for companies. The reasons for enacting the special law for this purpose are that (a) in an independent State, it is the fundamental right of a citizen to own, possess immovable as well as movable property and every citizen is at liberty to exercise his right of ownership over it, he may alienate the same by sale or gift at his free-will, he may get usufructs of it, in accordance with his own plans and no person, even the "State" could compel the owner to alienate, exchange or to deal with the property in a way other than in accordance with his own wishes. This vested right of an owner in respect of his protected and safeguarded in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) as fundamental right of a citizen, but the compulsory acquisition of a land for public purposes and companies is an exception to the above constitutional right and an owner of land may not resist acquisition of his land by Government Departments for public purposes, but at the same time his right of ownership has been protected and safeguarded by the Legislature through enacting the special law in this respect, that is the "Land Acquisition Act, 1894". The Act provides all kinds of remedies to the owner of a land except that he may not refuse acquisition of the same, but in Northern Areas unfortunately it has been observed by the Courts of law, that the Government Departments and Collectors Land Acquisition have deplorably violated and ignored the Land Acquisition Act, in past in matters of acquisition of lands, that is why the suffering people evoke the aid of law from Civil Courts almost in all cases of "acquisition", therefore, I would like to discuss the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in detail to provide a guideline to the Collectors of Land Acquisition in the area in future.
9. Whenever a land belonging to a citizen is required to a Government Department for public purpose, then the head of the department is not supposed to or is empowered to jump into the land and throw the landowner from the possession of the land and take possession of the same for the public purpose, but the department is bound to follow the procedure given in the Land Acquisition Act and it is envisaged in Settlement n section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, that "No. Officer, could even enter into any land belonging to any citizen in the country unless the public purpose for which the land is being acquired has been notified and published in the official Gazette(sic) compliance of section 4 of the Act, the Collector is bound to strictly follow the provisions from sections 5 to 9 of the Act, which almost all are mandatory in nature and non- compliance of these provisions in their true letters and spirit, causes all the proceedings by the Collector vitiate, without jurisdiction and void ab initio in the eye of law. The Collector after strictly complying the above provisions shall make an award after conducting the enquiry under section 11 of the Act and the award would get finality under-section 12 of the Act, then, but after payment of the awarded amount to the landowner or depositing the same into the Court under section 31 of the Act, the Collector gets authority in law to take possession of the land under section 16 and in the case of urgency under section 17 of the Act and transfers the same to the authority under section 17-A, but in both the situations", payment of awarded amount to the landowner or deposit of it into the Court is mandatory prerequisite of taking possession The rider discussion apparent the clear picture of the law, which provides that, no authority or 'the Collector is empowered to take possession of the acquired land unless the awarded amount is paid to the landowner or deposited, but the law givers were well aware of the fact that, sometimes (always in Northern Areas) the public functionaries either because, of ignorance of law or by law violating tendencies, get possession of the land without making an award or even without paying or depositing awarded amount. Therefore, the Legislature incorporated section 34 in the Act, to meet such a situation to safeguard the right of the owner. The section is reproduced as under:-- "34 Payment of interest.---When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: Provided that any waiver of the above right by the landowner shall be void and he shall be entitled to the said interest notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."
10. The above section of the Act categorically purports that, if amount of compensation is not paid to the owner of the land or deposited on or before taking possession of the land acquired, the Collector is bound to pay the awarded amount with compound interest at the rate of eight per cent from the time taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. The section is mandatory in its nature and the proviso to the section again presses the "imperative nature" of the section by providing legal impediment even on waiver of the above right by the landowner or any agreement to the contrary by the owner and the acquiring authority.
11. Keeping in view the above general discussions of the special law of land acquisition, if I examine the case in hand, the record of the case reveals that, no compensation amount has been paid to the respondent No.1 by the appellants even after making the award by the Collector (respondent No.2), therefore, section 34 of the Act fully attracts in the case and the respondent No.2 has very rightly made the impugned supplementary award and the order passed by the learned Referee Court is also in accordance with law, hence both need not to be interfered by this Court. I am supported by the case-law referred in PLD 1979 Lah. Page 735 in holding this legal view. The relevant portion of the same is as under:-- "---S. 19---Acquisition of land---Interest on compensation---Compensation awarded by payment of amount withheld without justification for four years---Held, award-holder became entitled to 8% compound interest on amount of compensation from date of award, under law and equity---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S.34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.81(d), 82(1), 121(d) & 122(1)."
12. As far the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, the points have no substance in law and the learned counsel failed to persuade my judicial mind to accept the points, for the reasons that the question of limitation is statutory and it is a legal impediment upon a right to invoke a remedial jurisdiction of a Court of law or any authority, if it is provided by the relevant law or Limitation Act and no limitation period has been provided by the Land Acquisition Act or by the Limitation Act to get remedy under section 34 of the Act, hence no limitation is hurdle in this case. The learned counsel failed to substantiate the second point also from the record.
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal is dismissed and the impugned orders are maintained, no orders as to cost and the Judicial Branch of this Court is directed to circulate copies of this judgment to all the Collectors Land Acquisition/Deputy Commissioners in the Area. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.