' The facts leading to this writ petition are as follows : - ' In the year 1969, land belonging to the petitioner measuring 32 Kanals, 13 Marlas comprised in fields bearing Nos. 12, 18, 19/1, 22/1, 23/I and 28/1 of Square No, 7 in village Momanpura, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, was compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpoSe, namely, for the construction of a highway. The compensation not only for the land but also for the trees and buildings standing thereon was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the award was announced in the year, 1970. The petitioner was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him. Consequently, he applied to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred to the Court for the determination of adequate compensation. However, the scheme for the construction of the highway having been subsequently abandoned the Government offered the property back to the petitioner and also demanded refund of the compensation money which the petitioner had received under protest. But meanwhile the Government had cut and removed the standing trees and demolished buildings situate in Field No, 28/1. The petitioner refused to refund the amount received by him and insisted that the reference be made to the Court first for the revision of the award. But the Collector refused to do so on the sole ground that the project having been abandond and the property having been offered back to the petitioner, it was no longer necessary to make any reference to the Court. According to him, it was for the petitioner to resume possession of the property and refund the amount of compensation received by him. Hence this writ petition.
2. Apart from the question of law involved in this case there is also a question of fact which is in controversy. According to the petitioner the Government took possession of only 4 Kanals of land comprised in Fields No, 28/1 and cleared it of all trees and buildings standing thereon : but did not take possession of the remaining 28 Kanals 13 Marlas. But according to the Department concerned the Government had taken possession of the entire land under acquisition. This point of difference does not have to be resolved here. It is an admitted fact that compensation received by the petitioner under protest was in respect of the entire property under acquisition including the trees and buildings. Assuming the factual position taken by the Department to be true, the process of acquisi tion was complete in respect of all the 32 Kanals, 13 Marlas and the trees and the superstructures. Adequate compensation had, therefore, to be paid to the owner, i,e, the petitioner.
The adequacy of the compensation assessed by the Collector was questioned by the petitioner, who required the Collector to refer the matter to the Court. It was, therefore, the statutory obligation of the Collector to make the reference. The fact that the project was abandoned subsequent to the acquisition is not relevant to the question of the determination of the adequate compensation. For, the property having been acquired, it is for the Government to dispose of it in any manner it likes. It was oven to the Government to offer the land back to the petitioner and demand refund of the amount paid to him but then the petitioner also had the option either to accept the offer or refuse it. It appears that the petitioner has suffered damages on account of the demolition of his buildings and felling of his trees. His case, therefore, is that even if he takes the land back, the Government is under an obligation to compensate him for the damages suffered by him. He, therefore, asserts that in respect of the land outside Field No, 28/1, which, according to him, was not taken possession of by the Government, section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act he resorted to and separate compensation be assessed, whereas for the land and other property comprised in field No, 28/1 normal procedure under section 18 of the Act be adopted.
' But since the Department's case is that the entire property had been taken possession of, the Court to which reference is due to be made has to determine adequate compensation under section 18 of the Act. It is only after the Court has finally determined compensation that the Government may in its discretion offer to return the property to the petitioner. The petitioner will then be in a position to decide whether to receive the compensation and wash his hands of the property or resume the property instead. The options must be open on either side. Neither the Government is under any legal obligation in the circumstances of this case to restore the property to the petitioner nor the petitioner is under any compulsion after so long a period to resume the property and forego the compensation. But in any case there is no legal justification for the refusal of the Collector to make the reference. The Land Acquisition Collector is, therefore, directed to refer the matter relating to the determination of adequate compensation to the Court without further delay. No further direction in the circumstances of this case is called for. The respondent shall bear the petitioner's costs.