' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---On conclusion of trial in a reference made to it by the appellants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan vide judgment dated 15-1-2001 accepted the same and held the appellants entitled to compound interest upon the amount of compensation approved by Board of Revenue at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 18-9-1997 till the date of fixed payment. As regards previous period commencing from 25-11-1981 to 17-9-1997 the appellants were held entitled to get compound interest of lease money per acre per year settled and decided by the District Collector. However, claim of the appellants that they should be paid compound interest since from 25-11-1981 when the first notification was issued has been rejected.
2. The landowners, namely, Nafs-e-Nabi etc. (hereinafter referred as appellants) have filed R.F.A.
No,181 of 2001 while the Province of Punjab (hereinafter referred as respondents) has filed R.F.A.
No,179 of 2001 against the above said judgment, which having involved same questions of facts and law are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were landowners of revenue estate falling in village Mauza Thada Thaheem Tehsil and District Lodhran, measuring 35 Kanals, 14 Marlas,. Which was proposed to be acquired by the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of construction of Dunyapur to Adamwahan section and Rukanpur to Adamwahan Mileage Nos.8 to 18 road in 1980-81 against Award dated 26-6-1999. The appellants preferred reference under section 18 of the Act with objections that compensation was not awarded at market value of the acquired land in terms of subpara 10(iii) C of the Land Acquisitions Rules 1985; that land was acquired in 1980-81 when the possession was parted with, as such the appellants were entitled to receive compound interest in terms of sections 28-C and 34 of the Act, and that 3 Acres land was situated within the Municipal limits of District Lodhran, hence the compensation amount should be enhanced.
4. The respondents contested the reference by filing written reply and raised certain preliminary objections. The controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated the framing of the following issues by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation to be worked out on the basis of the averments made in the reference? OPA
(2) Whether the reference is not competent in its present form? OPR.
(3) Whether the petitioners are bereft of cause of action and locus standi to make this reference after acceptance of compensation and have come to the Court with mala fide intention? OPR.
(4) Whether the compensation was paid strictly in accordance with law and Rules on the subject?
OPR
(5) Relief.
' Syed Nafs-e-Nabi, one of the appellants appeared as A.W.1 and also placed on record Gazette Notification and Award Exhs.A/1 to A/10. On behalf of the respondents Muhammad Arshad, Assistant Line Control Officer appeared as R.W.1 and documents Exhs.R/1 to R/6 were also produced. Then after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment was passed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that under section 34 read with section 28(c) of the Land Acquisition Act the appellants were entitled to the compound interest since from 1981 as the possession of the land was taken when the first notification regarding acquisition of the land owned by the appellants was issued on 25-11-1981. Also refers to the statements of R.W.1 that the possession of the land was taken in the year 1981. Relies upon Akbar Ali and others v. Province of Punjab and others (1990 CLC 718). However, the learned counsel for the appellants has foregone the other grounds regarding enhancement of compensation etc., settled through the impugned Award.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appellants were not entitled to any compound interest as after the issuance of earlier notifications on 25-11-1981, 19- 8-1984 and 31-7-1993 no further proceedings regarding acquisition of land were initiated, which elapsed by the afflux of time and it was only after the issuance of notification dated 18-9-1997 that the land was acquired for the project and Award was duly announced on 26-6-1999 whereby compensation was fixed. It is also contended that the appellants have also no claim for compound interest for the reason that they have been paid compensation of their lands as per rates prevailing in the year 1997 and not at the rates which prevailed in 1980-81.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. No doubt earlier notifications were issued under section 4(1) of the Act on 25-11-1981, 19-8-1984 and 31-7-1993, but there is nothing on the record to substantiate the plea of the appellants that the possession of the land was taken after the issuance of first notification in the year 1981. Procedure has been specified in the Act' for taking possession of the land after issuance of the notification. Subsection
(2) of section 4 thereof provides that after issuance of the notification it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf and for his servants and workmen to enter upon the lands for survey, dig or bore into the subsoil and to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose. And subsection
(3) lays down that the officer so A authorized shall at the time of such entry pay or tender payment for all necessary damage to be done as aforesaid, and, in case of dispute to the sufficiency of the amount so paid or tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to the decision of the Collector or other Chief Revenue Officer of the District, and such decision shall be final. The appellants have failed to tender any document showing that the abovesaid formalities were ever conducted before the last notification was issued on 18-9-1997 or that notice was ever served upon them earlier as required under section 9 of the Act or any enquiry provided under section 11 thereof was conducted by the Collector to resolve the objections, if any, raised by the appellants. Then under section 12 of the Act the final Award is announced. Section 16 provides that when the Collector has made an award under section 11, only then he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all A encumbrances. The oral version of the appellant and concessional statement made by R.W.1 during cross-examination in the shape of probability that possession might have been parted with by the appellants voluntarily in the year 1981 is not sufficient to declare that the possession was actually taken from the appellants in the year 1981 without completing the above formalities. Whereas R.W.1 in the examination-in-chief has specifically stated that the possession of the land was taken from the appellants at the time of payment of compensation to them, which admittedly was made after the issuance of last Notification dated 18-9-1997 accompanied by the Award announced on 26-6-1999.
8. Now we come to another aspect of the case that if the possession was actually taken in the year 1981 when the first notification was issued, then the compensation to be awarded to the landowners was to be assessed at the rates prevailing at that time and not in the year 1997 when the last notification was issued. The appellants are breathing hot and cold at the same time, who want to get the compensation at the high rates prevailed in 1997 and strangely on the said rates they are claiming compound interest for the last 16 years, which cannot be accepted from any stretch of imagination. The scheme of compound interest has been introduced so that unnecessary delay should not occur in the payment of compensation to the land-owners after taking possession of the land. Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows:-- "When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with compound interest thereon at the rate of eight per centum 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 landowners shall be void and he shall be entitled to the said interest notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."
In the present case admittedly the price of the proposed acquired land was never assessed after the issuance of earlier three notifications and as such there was no question of taking the possession of the land by the Collector without adopting the procedure. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellants had ever complained to any forum/higher authority that wrong was being done with them and their land was acquired without payment of any compensation.
The silence of the appellants for a long period of more than 17 years is a sufficient proof to infer that possession of the land was only taken after the issuance of last notification on 18-9-1997. As such the claim of the appellants for awarding compound interest since from 1981 has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. However, the appellants have been rightly awarded compound interest with effect from 18-9- 1997 when the last notification for acquisition of the land was issued and thereafter the formalities conducted for taking possession of the land coupled with announcement of Award on 26-6-1999.
We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, which has been passed after touching each aspect of the case and is maintained. The aforesaid appeals filed by both the patties being devoid of any merit are dismissed with no order as to costs.