' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- This judgment shall decide RFA No.456 of 2006 and RFA No.457 of 2006.
2. The ' land belonging to the respondents-land owners respeetively, located in villages Babu Sabu and Shera Kot, Tehsil and District Lahore, was acquired for the purposes of construction of wastage water channel. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 4-5- 1991. An award was announce on 30-11-1992, respectively, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.
1291 per Marla and Rs.5,721 per Marla. Feeling aggrieved the land owners filed references under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which were decided by Lahore Development Authority Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as Tribunal) vide judgment dated 26-5-2006. The compensation payable was increased to Rs.9,000 and Rs. 19,000 per Marla, respectively.
3. RFA No.456 of 2006 has been filed against the judgment in respect of land located in village Babu Sabu while R.F.A. No.457 of 2006 has been filed against the judgment in respect of land located in village Shera Kot. Mr. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases has raised a preliminary objection that these first appeals are not maintainable against the judgment of said Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal stands constituted under section 58 read with section 60 of Town Improvement Act, 1922. He contends that upon reading of section 59, particularly, sub-clause (a) thereof, an appeal provided under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not available against the decisions of the Tribunal, He has cited the cases "Secretary of State v. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd." AIR 1931 PC 149, "Mangat Rai and others v.
Jullunder Improvement Trust and others" AIR 1964 Punjab 455, "Barmashel Oil Storage and Distributing Co. Of India v. Municipal Committee, Jubbulpore" AIR 1949 Nagpur 148 and "Laxmanrao alias Baburao Shridharrao Deshmukh y. Collector of Nagpur District" AIR 1945 Nagpur 146. He has further explained that notwithstanding the repeal of Town Improvement Act, 1922, vide section 48 of Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, the said provisions of the Town Improvement Act, 1922, being relied upon, continued to apply by virtue of section 48(3)(ii) of the said Act, 1975. Mr. Nayyar Iqbal Ghaury, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants argues- that the said provisions of Town Improvement Act, 1922, were kept alive only for the purposes of pending case of land acquisition and not to those which were initiated after promulgation of said Act of 1975. Learned counsel in the alternate contends that these first appeals to be treated as writ petitions and the judgments passed by the said Tribunal be scrutinized within the scope of Article 199 of the Constitution. According to him the judgments, prima facie, gave impression that these suffer from legal mala fides. He supports this allegation, with the contention that four judgments have been passed whereas two references were consolidated. According to him, in the matter of R.F.A. No.456 of 2006, two judgments were passed; in one compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.9,000 per Marla while in the other it was fixed at the rate of Rs. 19,000 per Marla whereas yet another judgment was passed correcting the said judgment. Mr. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, rejoins to urge that only a clerical error came to occur in the judgment, which though signed, was not dated and the same error was corrected in lawful exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal.
4. We have gone through the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties .
There is no manner of doubt in our mind that the acquisition in question was initiated and conducted under provisions of said Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, read with said provisions of Town Improvement Act, 1922. The appeals have been filed against the judgments of the said Tribunal. Acquiring agency, of course, is Lahore Development Authority constituted under Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975. We deem it appropriate to reproduce here section 48(2) as also section 48(3)(ii) of the said Act of 1975:-~ - "Section 48(2).---On the 'establishment of the Authority under this Act, the Town Improvement Act, 1922, shall cease to apply to the Area and all schemes, projects, or works started under the said Act but not completed, shall be taken over by the Authority and executed under the provisions of this Act.
' Section 48(3)(ii).-The provisions of sections 45, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65 of the Town .Improvement Act, 1922, shall continue to apply in so far as the acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are concerned and shall be deemed to have always applied."
' It will be seen that the wording of said subsection (2) is not the same as is usually employed in such like provisions. Said Act of 1922 has not been repealed as such rather intention is that its provisions would not apply , to the area, schemes, projects or works to be taken over by the Lahore Development Authority and to be executed under provisions of Act of 1975. Subsection 3(ii) of said section 48 of said Act of 1975 in unambiguous terms provides that provisions of inter alia, sections 58 to 60 shall continue to apply in respect of acquisition made under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Nothing as suggested by Mr. Nayyar Iqbal Ghaury, Advocate, for the appellants is spelt out in the entire section 48. On the other hand, clear intention is that the acquisition is to be made in accordance with the said provisions.
5. Out of sections mentioned in section 48(3)(ii) of the said Act of 1975, section 45 provides for vesting of any street or other land belonging to the Municipal Committee in the Improvement Trust.
This provision is not relevant here. The remaining sections i.e. From section 56 to section 65 occur in chapter 6 of Town Improvement Act, 1922, providing for acquisition, provision and application of said Town Improvement Act, 1922 to the other authorities. Section 56 provides for abandonment of acquisition by the Trust in consideration for a special payment and entire procedure is provided therein for the said purpose. Section 57 provides that any land regarding which an agreement has been entered into under section 56 may be acquired again and only a'fresh declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be sufficient. Section 58 provides for the constitution of a Tribunal and then the Tribunal is to be constituted in accordance with section 60 of the said Act of 1922 for the purpose of performing functions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of the land for the Trust under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sections 61 to 63 deal with remuneration of the members of the Tribunal and its officers and servants. Section 64 authorizes Provincial Government to make rules not repugnant to the Code of Civil Procedure for the conduct of business by the Tribunal. Section 66 provides for application of Act to acquisition of land by municipal committee or other local authority. Section 65(l)(a) provides that the decision will be by opinion of the majority of the members of the Tribunal. Sub-clause (b) of the said section 65(1) vests the President of the Tribunal with sole authority to decide the question of law, title and procedure. Sub- clause (2) of section 65 provides for execution of the award of the Tribunal or any order made for payment of money by a Court of Small Cause and if there is no such Court then by the learned Senior Civil Judge or subordinate Judge or 1st Class Judge having territorial jurisdiction in the area, and in that case award is to be treated as a decree passed by the said executing Court. We are told that the impugned awards are being executed by the Court of Small Causes. .
6. Now coming to the said section 59 of the Town Improvement Act, 1922, section 59(a) is as follows:- "59. For the purpose of acquiring land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Trust:-
(a) The Tribunal shall (except for the purpose of section 54 of the said Act) be deemed to be the Court, and the President of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the Judge, under the said Act. "
Needless to state that section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides for an appeal against the award and decree of the Court (meaning the referee Court). Upon a plain reading of the said provisions, application of section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stands absolutely excluded and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do go to support the said obvious interpretation of the said provisions. It is by now well settled that a right of appeal has to be conferred by the statute in express terms and it does not exist otherwise. R.F.As. Accordingly are held to be incompetent.
7. In view of the said alternate plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgments be scrutinized within the parameters of Article 199 of the Constitution, we have examined the same. So far as the R.F.A. No.457 of 2006 is concerned, we do not find any ambiguity that the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5,721 per Marla whereas with reference to the material on record and after considering the law laid down by the superior judiciary of the country as also some judgments from Indian jurisdiction, compensation has been assessed at the rate of Rs. 19,000 per Marla. The land in this case is located in village Shera Kot, Lahore.
8. The second contention got noted by the learned counsel for the appellant pertains to R.F.A.
No.456 of 2006. We do find that in judgment signed by the President and all the members of the Tribunal but not dated, it has been stated that the market value of the land is fixed at Rs. 19,000.
This judgment is available at pages 260 to 271 of the paper book. The other judgment, which is signed by the President and all the members of the Tribunal is dated 26-5-2006, is available at pages 272 to 283 of the paper book, in which it has been stated that the said value is being fixed at the rate of Rs.9,000 per Marla. An application in terms of section 152, C.P.C. Was filed on 20-9-2006 pointing out that a clerical error has 'occurred in the judgment. Learned counsel for WASA was called and he reported that since these appeals are pending, his clients have no comments to offer. The judgments were examined and it was held by the President and the members of the Tribunal on 23-9-2006 that a clerical error has occurred because a connected case was also decided on the same day and the person who typed the judgment proceeded to mention wrong figures of Rs. 19,000 instead of Rs.9,000. The error was accordingly corrected. We have compared both the said judgments with the assistance of the learned, counsel for the parties and we find that there is no difference whatsoever so far as the words, reasons and the setting of the judgment are concerned, except that in one' judgment the said figure came to be mentioned as Rs.9,000 and in the other it came to be recorded as Rs. 19,000. We do agree that it was a clerical error and has been corrected.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant then contends that both the cases were consolidated and the Tribunal should have written one judgment. We hardly find it a ground to interfere in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. It is but evident upon reading of both the judgments and both the files that the lands belong to different localities, compensations were assessed differently and matters were accordingly dealt with by the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any ground being made out for interference with the impugned judgments in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Both the R.F.As. Are accordingly dismissed but. Without any orders as to costs. '