1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 27-11-1979, whereby a writ petition arising out of a claimcompensation for acquisition of petitioner's land under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, was dismissed in limine.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the compensation by his award dated 4-5-1974. No appeal was filed against this award within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the petitioners moved Deputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department complaining that a pucca structure (Haveli) existing in Khasra No. 2127 which was included in the acquired land, had not been assessed for purpose of compensation. They claimed additional compensation. This question was ultimately decided by the Land Acquisition Collector on 14-7-1974. As the Collector did not assess any compensation for the so-called Haveli, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was allowed and the case was remanded for consideration of the above mentioned claim of the petitioners. The Collector gave a finding of fact against the petitioners to the effect that the Haveli did not exist at the spot. The petitioners again filed an appeal which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Collector once again. Same exercise was repeated for the third time but without any success. Ultimately, the appellate authority itself appointed a local Commissioner for ascertaining whatever a pucca structure claimed by the petitioners in fact existed at the time of the acquisition. The local Commissioner reported back that there was no such structure/haveli. However, it was found that there was some kacha kothas. Thereupon the appellate authority once again remanded the case to the Land Acquisition Collector for assessing value of those kacha structures which existed in the land in dispute. The petitioner's case, however was that the l hacha structures were not on the land in dispute. They insisted that at they time of acquistion there were pucca structures in the form of Haveli and that they were entitled to compensation in that behalf. The order of remand passed by the Commissioner was challenged in the High Court through a writ' petition which as noted above, was dismissed in limine on 22-11-1979.
3. Therefore, this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. This is an extraordinary case showing the great tenacity of a litigant., Different functionaries of State starting from those who originally surveyed the land through those who took over the possession and ultimately dealt with 13 the claim of the petitioners with regard to the existence or otherwise of a pucca Haveli in the land in dispute, found it as a fact that no such structure existed at the spot at the time of acquisition. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioners thought they could on the basis of what now appears to be mere technicality succeed in establishing what was never existence. The argument of the learned counsel is based on the use of slightly loose termi--nology in the last paragraph of the first remand order passed by the appel--late authority. According to him, the Commissioner had then found it as a fact that a pacca structure/haveli existed at the spot therefore, the Collector was not competent to hold otherwise. The observation of the Commissioner thus relied upon reads as follows :-- "I have heard the parties through their counsel and their representatives and have also perused the relevant record. I am convinced that the L. A. C. Has not taken into consideration the claim of the appellants with regard to the compensation on account of the structure which existed in Khasra No. 2127 and losses and damages suffered by them as provided in clauses (iv) and (v) of section 19, as ibid. This appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the L. A. C. For afresh decision in the light of the above observations."
5. In the two paragraphs preceding the above part of the Commissioner's order the claim of the petitioners and the denial from the side of the Depart--ment were noted. Learned counsel while interpreting the above-quoted paragraph of the order of the Commissioner laid stress on the observation that compensation was to be awarded on account of the structure which existed in Khasra No. 2127. Unfortunately, an important prefix namely "the claim of the appellants with regard to" has been ignored. When read as a whole the. Order of the Commissioner conveys that the petitioners had made a claim with regard to the compensation for a structure in Khasra No. 2127.
6. The Commissioner had not decided the various questions involved in the petitioners' claim which would have included the existence or otherwise of the pucca structure. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we are satisfied that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by C . the petitioners. The petitioners should have felt satisfied with the treatment of the factual questions raised before the High Court. This is a frivolous petition which is accordingly dismissed.