1. MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- Through this writ petition, the petitioners claim 8% compound interest over the amount fixed in the Award No.DK-1(Iqbal)2786-87/2004 dated 31-5-2004 and paid to the petitioners, with the contention that in the month of August, 1999, the respondents requisitioned some land owned by the petitioners, under Land Acquisition Act, 1884, (hereinafter called the Act), for construction of link road. The respondents constructed the link road over the lands without making any award or payments of compensation amount to the owners (petitioners). Lastly, there remained no option to the petitioners, but to display agitation against the respondents and as a result, the respondents moved to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners, but the respondents denied to include the compound interest in the award, in utter violation of section 34 of the Act.
2. On the other hand, the respondents acceded to the fact that the lands owned by the petitioners were taken into possession to construct, the road in the year, 1999 and the compensation has been paid to the owners in the year, 2004, but they alleged that, the delay was, because of non- cooperative attitude of the petitioners, We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners founded his case on the points that, (a) the fact of taking possession of the acquired lands in the year, 1999 without making the award, and payment of compensation amount in the year, 2004 is un-disputed between the parties, as such the respondent No.1 was bound to include the compound interest, assessing the same, from the time of taking possession of the lands up to the date of payment of the award as envisaged in section 34 of the Act, (b) that section 34 of the Act is mandatory in its nature as such, its operation could not be avoided by any means or pretext, the section even does not recognize any waiver or estoppel, therefore, the plea of delay, on part of the petitioners taken by the respondents, is devoid of substance on the record of the case.
4. At the other end, the learned Advocate-General, although, conceded the mandatory nature of section 34 of the Act, but defended the case of the respondents with the force of the points that,
(a) the delay in making the award and payment of the compensation has been caused by the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioners, as such the petitioners are, not entitle to take benefit of section 34 of the Act (b) that, the petitioners have not objected to the award under section 18 of the Act as such, the writ jurisdiction of this Court is, not available to the petitioners, We minutely scrutinized the above points, in the light of relevant law and the facts of the case, as far the 1st point is concerned, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as the High Court are not at variance in their legal view, that, section 34 of the Act penalizes the Collector for his deviation from mandatory provisions of the Act and it fixes obligation upon the Collector Land Acquisition, to include compound interest in the award, whenever, the Collector or the acquiring agency/department take possession of the land prior to make the award and its payment to the owners. The another philosophy of law behind this provisions is to enable the owners to meet the inflation with the passage of time. These points have been exhaustively discussed by this Court in the case titled "Government of Pakistan v. Collector Land Acquisition/ Settlement Officer" published in 2006 CLC page 1641 and the copy of the same has been sent to all the Collector Land Acquisition in Northern Areas, with the direction to comply the same in land acquisition cases, but the Collectors in the area are determined to cause extra losses to the Government treasury by deviating from obligatory provisions of the Act, hence, despite the instructions given to them, by this Court, under its supervisory jurisdiction, through the above ruling, they persistently ignore the instructions and are in continuity of previous illegal practice.
5. The attitude of the Collectors is deplorable and is liable to be taken a serious note of the same, but before going to take a serious notice by this Court, we deem it proper to inform the Provincial Government to look into the matter, so the Judicial branch of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment coupled with the judgment of this Court published in 2006 CLC page 1552 to the Chief Secretary Northern Areas.
6. The second point of the learned Advocate General is also having no merits, for the reasons that, (a) section 18 of the Act is not impediment in the way of writ jurisdiction of this Court and this point has been decided in negative, by this Court in various cases, hence the learned Advocate General, though with full professional ability, has raised the same, but failed to persuade us to take any judicial notice, hence the writ petition is competent and in holding this view, we are supported not only by the various judgments of this Court, but also by the case-law laid down in 2007 CLC (Karachi) page 700.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is accepted. The petitioners are entitled to get 8% compound interest from the time of taking possession of the lands till the day of payment of the compensation amount to the petitioners by the respondents. The respondents are directed to pay the same to the petitioners File. 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.