' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioners' land was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of construction of Ring Road Project, firstly the respondent issued a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein Khasra No,903 with complete description of land of the petitioners was mentioned. Another Notification under section 17(4)(6) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued with full description of the land along with number Khasra as 903. Thereafter, Award No,12 of 2007 was announced and that too on the basis of above referred Notifications.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners got issued fresh Fard for receiving the compensation from Halqa Patwari in respect of the acquired land, approached the respondents, submitted all the documents required for the said purpose, even indemnity bonds were submitted as per direction of the respondents for the payment, but the respondents showed reluctance to pay the compensation which forced the petitioners to file Writ Petition No,2959 of 2008, wherein notice was issued. However, out of mala fide and ulterior motive an antedated corrigendum under section 12-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued declaring the petitioners' land as area falling under road instead of area under acquisition, keeping aside that the respondents had already withdrawn land measuring 15 Kanals, 12 Marlas for the road and the antedated corrigendum was only issued against the petitioners' land in a discriminatory manner because the other owners' land was not withdrawn by the respondents for the purpose of area under road, so the corrigendum issued by the respondents be declared illegal, without lawful authority and the respondents be directed to pay compensatory amount of the acquired land.
3. On the other hand, learned Law Officer, assisted by the departmental representative, stood behind the impugned action and submits that the Land Acquisition Collector could rectify the wrong and in the present case only the wrong was rectified and nothing else.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The impugned matter revolves around only a legal question i,e, "Whether the Land Acquisition Collector could change the Notification of acquisition of land through any corrigendum or not"
6. To resolve this issue, section 12-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be useful to reproduce as under:-- "12-A. Correction of mistake.---Any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Collector either of his own motion or on the application of any of the parties."
7. Plain reading of section 12-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reveals that after announcement of award the Land Acquisition Collector becomes functus officio.
8. In this respect, the law is settled and if some reference is required, reliance can be placed on Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali v. Muhammad Amir 1987 CLC 2095, wherein it is held, "Corrigendum to award---Land Acquisition Collector after announcing award became functus officio and was not competent to review or change it."
' This judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was not upset by the apex Court, meaning thereby that it attained finality.
9. In another case reported as Nasreen Zahira v. Government of Punjab 2000 YLR 419, wherein it is held, "In absence of any provision in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 conferring right of review, Land Acquisition Collector had no power to review the award.
' Review was a substantive right which had to be conferred on a party by express letters of the law- --West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, was a Code itself which defined powers and jurisdiction of Authorities which were its creatures i,e, the Revenue Officers---Land Acquisition Collector not creation of the said Act, but was a creature of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Mere fact that Land Acquisition Collector also happened to hold office of Collector under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, would not authorize him to invoke powers conferred on him as a Revenue Officer under the said Act, 1967."
10. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned corrigendum dated 31-12- 2007 is declared illegal, without lawful authority and is set aside.