MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioner owned the land in dispute in Haiderabad City and on 7-10- 1978 came to know that some people had visited the land and the same was being acquired. On 10-10-1978 she filed objections to the acquisition and on 17-10-1978 the Board of Revenue informed her that she should move the Land Acquisition Officer in this regard. On 2-11-1978 a Notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and since there was a mistake in some numbers of land mentioned in the Notification, a corrigendum was issued on 23-11.1978. Before this, however, on 2-11-1978 a second Notification was issued under section 17 (4) of the Act.
2. The petitioner wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Haiderabad and then to the Commissioner and others but to no avail and on 30-11-1978 filed a claim to compensation under protest. On 5-12- 1978 notice was given to the petitioner under section 12 (2) and an Award was made on 25-11-1978.
The Award not having been accepted by the petitioner, the matter is pending before the civil Court.
3. Meanwhile on 28-12-1978 the petitioner moved the High Court of Sind in its constitutional jurisdiction praying for a declaration that the acquisition was illegal.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel before us that the acquisition of land is absolutely illegal as the provisions of section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act have not been complied with. On being asked to illucidate his submissions he informed us that that measurements of the land have not been carried out by the Director for Settlement, Survey and Land Record, and no notification under section 9 has been issued.
The Section itself does not make any mention of the particular person who has to carry out the measurements of the land. The petitioner rests its case upon the provision in a rule, but the transgression thereof could be justiciable only if it could be shown by the petitioner that her interests have suffered on account of land having been measured by someone else No such averment has been made before us.
5. It has also been submitted before us that the land should have been acquired under the Hyderabad Development Authority Act because it was required for the Authority, and that it should not have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
6. Be that as it may, in answer to a question posed by us we have been informed that not only had the land been taken possession of, but even the storage tanks for which it was acquired have already been constructed upon it. In these circumstances. We find no justification for interfering with the order of the High Court. We consequently reject this petition and decline to grant leave to appeal.