MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- This judgment proposes to decide two constitutional petitions (W.Ps. No. 4474 & 5480 of 2007), which raise similar questions of law/facts; require similar determination and are directed against the same set of the respondents.
2. Both these Writ Petitions challenged the notifications dated 3-1-2006, 17-4-2006 and 20-2-2007 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby land of the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4474 of 2007 situated in village Wasoo and land of the other writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5480 of 2007 of village Sohawa Bolani, both the villages of District Mandi Baha-ud-Din and were proposed to be acquired for construction of District Headquarter Hospital.
3. Precisely, relevant facts are that land measuring 954 kanals, 2 marlas within the Revenue. Estates of the above-noted two villages was needed by the respondents for public purpose to construct/establish District Headquarter Hospital which according to the petitioners, is being used for commercial purposes with a Dairy Farm, Petrol Pump and Jinnah Market having been constructed there over. They have claimed that the land sought to be acquired also includes a "Darbar", "Graveyard', "Mosque" and a "Madrissa" and most part of it, is under cultivation and is highly fertile agricultural land. They also asserted that in the year 1994 land measuring 1000 kanals, 7 marlas was acquired for construction of District Offices Complex (officers residences) and a part of this land measuring 200 kanals was allocated for District Headquarter Hospital. According to them, their land was earlier, as well, was acquired and in presence of availability of these 200 kanals land earmarked for the hospital, the acquisition under attack, is male fide; under political victimization and without any need necessity.
It is further asserted that the acquisition in question does not involve any public purpose; funds for payment -of compensation to the land owner or for construction of hospital are not available and the respondents' malice is-apparent from the fact that they stealthily undertook the acquisition proceedings at the back of the owners -and concealed the so-called decision of the L.A.C. Dated 22-3- 2006 deciding objections filed by the landowners before the Land Acquisition Collector while hearing of earlier constitutional petition by this Court i.e. (W.P. No: 17822006) which was disposed of on 15-5=2006. Petitioners raised numerous multiple objections to the proceedings allegedly taken for acquisition of their private property and attacked the award dated 4-6-2007 delivered by the L.A.C. Grading those proceedings/award as contrary to constitutional warrantees.
4. Previously Umer Hayat Javed and another (the land owners) filed Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2006 challenging the notification dated 28-11-2005 which was disposed of on 15-5-2006, directing the D.O.(Revenue)/LAC to advert to the objections raised on behalf of the writ petitioner expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law. This Court while disposing of this writ petition observed that the purpose for which the land has been acquired is a public purpose. Judgment dated 15-5-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber of this Court was assailed in appeal i.e. (I.C.A. No. 154 of 2006) but the same was also disposed of leaving the owners to press their objections before the concerned authority. The petitions in hand, besides their grievances noted above, complained that direction by this Court in the constitutional petition and in the I.C.A. Remained un-accomplished; as their objection were not decided by the L.A.C. Incompliance thereof. Respondents in response to notice by this Court have not only filed their reports/parawise comments but have also appeared and were represented through Ch. Muhammad Sadiq Additional Advocate General.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. The writ petitioners did file their objections before the Land Acquisition Collector which were decided by him on 22-3- 2006 after hearing them and in presence of their counsel but this fact was not pointed out at the time of decision of earlier Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2006 or I.C.A. No. 154 of 2006. Suppression of this fact by the landowners or by the official-respondent at the time of earlier decision by this Court is not material as it would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings or the notification under attack. Record revealed that the Land Acquisition Collector once decided the objections of the landowners on 22-3-2006 and for the second time while announcing his award on 4-6-2007, decided their fresh objections which had been filed after earlier decision by this Court and notice dated 30-4-2007 by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioners were heard by L.A.C. On 22-3-2006 who marked their presence in his order and his exercise of deciding the objections of the petitioners for the second time on 4-6- 2007, removed their grievances that they were not heard by the L.A.C.
6. Adverting to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding ill-motivated acquisition and its "purpose", besides findings by this Court, in para 5 of the judgment dated 15-5- 2006 in Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2006 to the effect that the purpose for which land has been acquired is a "public purpose" which has attained finality, on the face of the record of acquisition file, it is evident that the same is for the use, utility of public-at-large and requires no further determination. The other objection of the petitioner regarding availability of 200 kanals of land for construction of District Headquarter Hospital apparently appeared to be attractive but on deeper analysis, it transpired that the earlier land measuring 1000 kanlas was acquired for construction of building of Sessions/Civil Revenue Courts, Bar Room, Chambers of the Advocates, Police Lines, Residences for the Sessions/Civil Judges, D.C.O. Offices, District Nazim Offices, Jinnah Public School, Gymnasium, Staff Residences, Offices' of E.D.Os. Etc. In form of District Complex. Compensation for the land acquired has already been paid to the owners and most of the buildings have been completed and offices/courts are functioning at this site. 'Respondents' stance is that on completion of District Complex, there is no land left for construction of District Headquarter hospital, necessitating the acquisition under challenge. In view of this situation, respondents are not denuded of their authority to opt for fresh acquisition for construction of building of the Hospital, which will be used for the benefit of the general public. Above all, the landowners will be compensated in terms of money. It was reported at the Bar that 37 landowners out of about 100, have already received the compensation of their lands acquired. There is nothing on the file to doubt the claim put forth by the respondents, as most of the earlier acquired land measuring' 200 kanals for this purpose was no more available on account of its utilization for completion of the District Complex, especially in presence of approval of PC-1 by the Finance Department.
Respondents assertively urged that funds for payment of compensation and construction of hospital are available and the landowners will not be deprived of their right to get the lawful compensation. They-also denied the arguments of the petitioners that D.D.O. (Revenue) could not act as Land Acquisition Collector or on account of his transfer, he illegally announced his' award- dated 4-6-2007. I have examined the letter under which D.D.O. (Revenue) by which he was said to have been transferred but the same was just a proposal which never matured.
7. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no reason has been assigned by the Land Acquisition Collector for inclusion in the acquisition of commercial land; notice under Section 9 of the Act ( ibid ) was subsequently issued to the notice under Section 17 of the said Act; reasons for acquisition to the satisfaction of the L.A.C. Were not given in terms of Rules 3 and 5 of the Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 and the recommendations for acquisition were not transmitted to the Commissioner as per Rule 9, have not impressed me to adjudge the lawful acquisition proceedings, after announcement of Award by the L.A.C. In light of the judgments in the case of Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and 2 others v. The Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot and 3 others (PLD 1983 Lahore 178) and the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1782 of 2006. I was not impressed by the arguments of the petitioner that there is no urgency involved in the acquisition thus the provisions in this behalf in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were incorrectly invoked. It is to the knowledge of even a layman that hospital is a need of every body and for this purpose, emergent powers should have been instantly invoked. Mandi Baha-ud-Din was declared District in July, 1993 and the same is being run for the last 14 years without any independent. District Quarter Hospital.
Up-gradation of Tehsil Headquarter Hospital on 28-3-2002 by the Governor of the Punjab could not see its success as the land of adjoining cinema which was to be included in Tehsil Headquarter Hospital was withdrawn by the Chief Executive of the Province. Respondents have traced the entire history -of setting up of District Headquarter Hospital in their reports parawise comment could not be seriously denied by the writ petitioners and at the same time, left no room to assume that acquisition in question is in any manner tainted with any ulterior motive or malice.
Scan of record revealed that acquisition of land for construction of hospital is need of the area and has been made in the best interest need of the public. The Land Acquisition Collector has already announced the Award and if the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation fixed therein, they may have resort to filing of reference under Section 18 of the Act and in presence of this adequate remedy, awarding to this extent cannot be challenged before this Court.
8. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in constitution jurisdiction of this Court was made out and consequently both the titled writ petitions being devoid of any merit, are dismissed with no order as to cost . 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.