' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 30-5-1988 the respondents Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit against the petitioners and the other respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that they are the owners in possession of the suit-land comprising Khasra No.554/1. It is located at a distance of about two miles from the Municipal limits of Hafizabad on a Pacca road.
Mutation No.72 was attested in favour of the respondent No.3 (Provincial Government) on 1-4-1985 in the absence of the plaintiffs. However, it was rejected on 28-9-1986. The official respondents were claiming bribe which was refused and they again entered Mutation No.156 on 28-3-1988 and got it attested on the same date. Their case was that neither the land has been acquired lawfully nor could it be acquired being within the prohibited zone i.e. Three miles of the said Municipal limits.
A declaration was accordingly sought. This suit was not contested by the Provincial. Government and the other official respondents. It was, however, contested by Saifullah, Patwari respondent and the petitioners. In their written statement, it was urged that the plaintiffs have received the compensation and the land has correctly been mutated in favour of the Provincial Government.
Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree dated 14-10- 2000 the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. However, I may note here that it was found that the petitioners are not the owners of the said land. The plaintiffs filed a first appeal while the petitioners filed cross-objections. A learned ADJ, Hafizabad, vide judgment and decree dated 4-1-2003 allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-objections.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the land was lawfully acquired and compensation was paid to the plaintiffs and the learned ADJ has misread the evidence on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that there is no evidence of any acquisition of land whether lawfully or otherwise on the record.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws my attention to a copy of notification dated 4-11-1975 (at pages 14 and 15 of the paper book) to urge that the land was lawfully acquired. This is a notification under section 4 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, stating that the land mentioned therein is likely to be acquired. Inter alia, Khasra No.1012/225 measuring 3 Kanals, of village Battery, Tehsil Hafizabad, is also mentioned therein. According to the learned counsel, this land was later given Khasra No.554/1 vide Exh.P.1 Misal-i-Haqaiat for the year 1980-81. However, nothing turns on the said contention of the learned counsel. The reason being that the said notification only expresses an intention to acquire the said land. I have already noted the date of the notification as 4-11-1975. Exh.P.1 is the Misal-i-Haqiat for the year 1980-81 and the plaintiffs are recorded as owners in possession of the said land. Similarly, the plaintiffs are recorded as owners in possession in Exh.P.2 for the year 1984-85. Under the said Act of 1973, after the issuance of said notification under section 4, a notice under section 6 was to be given by the Collector stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and inviting claim for compensation. Thereafter an inquiry is to be made by the Collector under section 7 and he has to make an award. Under section 12 the Collector has to intimate the Government of his award and upon its acceptance by the Government he has to take possession within 15 days of the said award. In the 'present case, there is no evidence of any notice under section 6, any inquiry under section 7 or making of an award thereunder and any evidence of taking possession in terms of section 12 of the said Act of 1973.
4. The said Act was repealed vide section 2 of the Punjab Acquisition of Lands (Housing) (Repeal)
Act, 1985. As per section 3 of the said Repealing Act, the cases in which the award has not been B announced, the matter was to be dealt with in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Repealing Act took effect on 13-11-1985.
5. It will be seen that notwithstanding the factual and legal position on record, the said Patwari who contested the suit proceeded to enter Mutation No.156 on 28-3-1988 and it was attested on the same day by the Revenue Officer. The mutation has been effected with reference to a notification dated 11-4-1975.
6. The learned ADJ has very correctly read the evidence on record and has decided the matter in accordance with the applicable law. The Civil revision accordingly is dismissed with costs C throughout.