' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This judgment shall decide W.P.No,19553 of 2005 and W.P.No,672 of 2006 as common questions are involved.
2. Some land belonging to the petitioner and his two brothers mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition (measuring 11 Marlas) stated to be a commercial plot, in the first instance, was taken over by the respondent-National Highway Authority (NHA) during the construction of additional A carriage way. This act was done on 8-6-1994. The matter for assessment of compensation was referred to a District Assessm ent Committee, Rahimyar Khan and, the market value was assessed at Rs,1,85,000 per Marlas on 6-1-2004. The decision was conveyed to the EDO(R), Rahimyar Khan, for obtaining sanction of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, in terms of Rule 12 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. According to the petitioner, his claim was that the land is valued at Rs,5,00,000 per Marla. The DO(R) addressed several letters to NHA to deposit the said price whereupon NHA did make the deposit on 7-4-2005. At this stage, proceedings were commenced for acquisition. A Notification under sections 17(4) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was also issued. Meanwhile the Board of Revenue conducted proceedings in the matter and approved the said estimated cost of the land on 26-7-2005. The grievance being made out by the petitioner is that despite the approval of the said estimated cost, the Land Acquisition Collector proceeded to make and publish an award on 16-11-2005 and the market value of the land was assessed at Rs,35,000 per Marlas. The Board of Revenue vide.Order dated 6-2-2006 declared the award dated 16-11-2005 to be illegal and the Land Acquisition Collector has withdrawn the award dated 16-11- 2005 on 15-3-2006 with the intimation that a fresh award will be given.
3. Whereas the petitioner/land owner has filed W.P.No,19553 of 2005 to question the said award dated 16;11-2005, the NHA has filed W.P.No,672 of 2006 to question the said orders dated 6-2-2006 of the Board of Revenue and of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 15-3-2006 withdrawing the award.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since under the rules framed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Punjab, the price has to be assessed in the manner as was done in the case of the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Collector had no authority to give an award at a rate less than the approved estimated cost of land. Mr. Jehanzeb Khan Bharwana, Advocate/learned counsel for NHA, on the other hand, contends that there is no provision of law authorizing the Board of Revenue to set aside the award given under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the only relief available to aggrieved parties is a reference under section 18 of the said Act, 1894. Learned counsel informs that the NHA, in fact, has filed a reference, which is pending in the referee Court.
5. I have gone through these files. Admittedly, an award was made and published by the Land Acquisition Collector assessing the compensation to be paid to the petitioner for the acquired land.
The award has been made in terms of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under section 12- A of the said Act only a clerical or arithmetical errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may be corrected by the Collector either of his own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
6. Any party aggrieved of the award can file a reference under section 18 of the said Act. The decision given on such a reference is appealable in terms of section 54 of the said Act.
7. In the entire Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no provision whereby the Board of Revenue can interfere with an D award given under section 11 of the said Act.
8. The above is the legal position. Since the matter is to be considered by the referee Court, we are restraining ourselves from commenting on merits. However, we are constrained to observe that it is mentioned in the award itself that officials of NHA themselves filed a report that the cost of the land has been assessed at the rate of Rs,1,85,000 per Marla whereas the claim of the land owners was that the price should be Rs,5,00,000 per. Marla. Somehow or the other, the Land Acquisition Collector proceeded to fix the value at Rs,35,000 per Marla. No reasons for the said drastic reduction in view of the statement made by the officials of the NHA themselves are present in the said award.
9. Be that as it may, in view of the discussion made above, W.P.No,672 of 2006 is allowed and the orders dated 6-2-2006 of the Board of Revenue and 15-3-2006 of the Land Acquisition Collector are declared to be without lawful authority and are set aside. Since the award stood withdrawn and the said impugned orders have been set aside by this Court today, we dispose of W.P.No,19553 of 2005 with a direction that the petitioner and his co-owners shall file a reference in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within seven days from today before the Land Acquisition Collector, NHA, Rahimyar Khan, who shall immediately remit the reference to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan, where the reference filed by NHA is already pending.
The referee Court shall take all steps to decide both the references before the year, 2009 is out. No orders as to costs.
10. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the Land Acquisition Collector, NHA, Rahimyar Khan as also the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan. 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.