' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---The petitioners through this constitutional petition has sought the invalidation of letter, dated 6-1-2007 whereby the respondent-LDA has directed the petitioners to remove the structure/encroachment created by the petitioners on the adjoining plots. The grandfather of the petitioners namely Dr. Sultan Ahmad Cheema purchased a piece of land measuring 1 Kanal 14 Marlas in the Revenue Estate of Bhekaywal, Tehsil and District Lahore in 1978- 79 and constructed a house thereon after getting building plan sanctioned by the Lahore Development Authority. The petitioners were also provided all the amenities like sewerage, electricity, telephone etc. The petitioners' grandfather, as alleged by the petitioners, purchased a piece of land measuring 4 Marla situated in same revenue estate which was transferred in his name on 5-9-1984 by the Central Government. The Highway Department acquired 4 .Marla out of the total holding of the grandfather of the petitioners in 1984 to construct a road over there.
Thereafter the land situated within the revenue estate of Bhekaywal was acquired by the LDA in 1981 vide notification, dated 5-2-1981. It is alleged by the petitioners that the Land Acquisition Collector inadvertently made an award of 1 Kanal 1 Marla in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners.
Petitioners' grandfather thereafter moved an application for the adjustment of his house and in response thereof, the LDA written a letter, dated 16-1-1984 whereby the petitioners were informed that the LDA is ready to adjust the house of petitioners in terms mentioned in the aforesaid letter. In the aforesaid letter, the petitioners were specifically informed that the price of the access land owned by the petitioners will be fixed by the Price Committee of the LDA. The amount demanded by the respondent-LDA in the aforesaid letter was deposited by the petitioners' grandfather but thereafter through another letter, dated 12-9-1985 the petitioners were informed that land measuring 13 marlas out of the holding of the petitioners was acquired for the Township Road and the rest of the land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla 9 Sq.Feet is the ownership of the petitioners' grandfather. In this letter, it was also mentioned that the price of the land measuring 15 Marlas 175 Sq.Feet encroached upon by the petitioners will be charged at the market price to be fixed by the Price Committee of the LDA, in result of another correspondence, the petitioners were informed that the actual area awarded by, the LDA to the petitioners is 1 Kanal 1 Marla and the area encroached beyond entitlement of the petitioners is 15 Marla 175 Sq.Feet. It was also contended in the petition that the petitioners are entitled to retain the possession of land measuring 1 katial 14 Marlas and are also ready to pay the market price of 14 Marlas as offered by the petitioners. The petitioners also given certain instances in para-16 of the petition whereby tried to show that the respondent- LDA accommodated many others in the similar situation and the petitioners were being treated discriminatory. The petitioners also challenged the validity of the award issued by the Land Acquisition Collector wherein the holding of the petitioners is shown 1 Kanal 1 Marla 0 sq.Feet. Lastly, the petitioners sought the invalidation of the letter, dated 6-1-2007, impugned herein. In response of the notice, the LDA filed its parawise comments wherein it is contended that the petitioners are only entitled the adjustment of his ownership as given in the award, dated 5-1-1981 given by the Land Acquisition Collector at the time of acquiring the area of concerned estate Bhekaywal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents are estopped by their own conduct and behavior to dispute the adjustment of the entitled of the petitioners. Next contended that the respondents themselves made an offer of the adjustment of the house of the petitioners, which was constructed after getting approval of the site-plan by the LDA. The offer was accepted by the petitioners and in pursuance thereof also deposited the amount demanded by the respondent so the respondents at this belated stage cannot take a different stance already offered to the petitioners through various letters annexed with the instant petition. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioners are still in possession of the land measuring 1 Kanal 14 Marlas which was purchased by the petitioners and the respondent-LDA has no lawful authority to question the title and entitlement of the petitioners without any lawful justification. As regards to the acquisition of land measuring 13 Marlas out of the holding of the petitioners, the learned counsel contended that in fact National Highway Authority acquired only 4 Marlas, therefore, the ground taken in the reports and parawise comments is totally contrary to the record. Learned counsel in support of his argument also contended that the grandfather of the petitioners also purchased a piece of land 4 Marlas from the Central Government which was duly transferred in his favour so the title of the petitioners in any case is supported by the registered sale-deed. Also contended by the learned counsel that the LDA sanctioned the site-plan of the petitioners in the year, 1979 wherein the petitioners mentioned their holding 1 Kanal 14 Marlas so in this way, the respondent-LDA adjusted the house/ ownership of the petitioners of the aforesaid area in the M.A. Johar Town Scheme, therefore, any subsequent action to that effect is in fact the result of highhandedness of the respondents otherwise the respondents have no authority in law to question the entitlement of the petitioners. Reliance is placed on Quetta Textile Mills Limited, Nadir House, G/F-1, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others (2000 YLR 2683), Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through Legal Representatives v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi (1991 SCM R 2300), Federation of G-6, Welfare Association, Islamabad through its President v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Housing and Works Islamabad and 2 others (2001 M LD 643) and Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and 2 others v. Salahuddin and 3 others (PLD 1991 SC 546).
3. Conversely, Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Mian, Advocate, learned counsel for LDA mainly argued that the land of the Bhekaywal Revenue Estate was acquired by the LDA for the purpose to establish a housing scheme known as M.A. Johar Town. In the award, which was announced by the LDA in the year, 1981, the holding/ownership of the petitioners is mentioned 1 Kanal 1 marla, therefore, the petitioners are only entitled to that extent and the rest of the area encroached upon by the petitioners has already been included in the scheme and allotted to different persons. Learned counsel also contended that different letters referred by the petitioners although issued by the respondent LDA but any action or letter issued by a Government official or the employees of the LDA if is against the record and particularly the terms of the award have no legal effect. Next contended that it is admitted on record and also by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners till today have not challenged the validity of award issued in the year, 1980-81 wherein the entitlement of the petitioners is mentioned 1 Kanal 1 Marla so in this eventuality the petitioners are estopped by law to claim anything access to their entitlement.
Learned counsel in support of his contention submitted that it is settled proposition of law that no estoppal can be claimed against law. Lastly contended that only document which has been given under a statute namely Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 so the petitioners cannot claim anything contrary to the said award on the basis of certain letters issued by the official of the LDA. Also contended that the land encroached upon by the petitioners has already been included in the master plan of the scheme and has been allotted to different persons so if the area claimed by the petitioners is adjusted as it is, that will against the scheme and the policy of the area. In support of his contention, the learned counsel submitted a site-plan of the plot. Through this site- plan, the learned counsel submitted that the plan shows the area encroached upon by the petitioners has been allotted to two persons.
4. Ms. Shaista Habib, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant in the civil miscellaneous application under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. Adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for LDA.
5. I have heard -the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Undeniably, the suit property was acquired by the LDA to establish a housing scheme known as "Muhammad Ali Johar Town". After completing all the formalities, the award was finally announced on 5-1-1981 which shows that the respondent-LDA acquired the land of the petitioner measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla and the petitioner till today neither challenged the award before the concerned authority by filing the objection nor before any Court of law, therefore, it is sufficient to A understand that the petitioner admitted the vires of the award and acquisition their land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla. The only legal document which is available on the file and submitted on behalf of the petitioner, issued under a statute namely Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, totally negates the stance of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had the possession of 1-Kanal 14-Marlas at the time of acquisition so in this view of the matter, the petitioner can only demand the adjustment of the land mentioned in the aforesaid award. Although, the officers of the LDA written different letters to the petitioners whereby the petitioners were given certain offers but all those letters and their acceptance on behalf of the petitioners after long time of the issuance of the aforesaid award and even otherwise, those letters have no legal sanctity in presence of a legal document namely award'of prove their entitlement and its adjustment by referring any law or policy of the LDA. The respondent-LDA also bound to adjust the land according to their entitlement of the owners as mentioned in the award. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no nexus with the facts of the present case. It is true that at one point of time, the petitioners were offered by the LDA that the land encroached upon by the petitioners will be adjusted and given to, them at the market price decided by the Price Committee of the LDA. The respondent-LDA even today can give effect to the offer and receive the market price of A land encroached upon by the petitioners but that would be subject to the concurrence of the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioners also failed to point out any instance to show that the respondent-LDA accommodated any other person in the similar situation so the stance taken by the petitioners that they are being treated discriminatory has no force.
7. The petitioners have submitted that they have already filed an application to the Chief Minister Punjab in February, 2007 for the settlement of the dispute but the same has not been finally decided. The petitioners may pursue their applications and in case the aforesaid applications are still pending adjudication, the same shall be decided by the concerned authority after providing an opportunity to the petitioners.
8. Resultantly, this petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.