' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---This appeal, with leave of the Court dated 5-7-2012, primarily entails the questions (i) whether the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 (1983 Rules) shall be attracted to the present case and (ii) the land in dispute which admittedly had been acquired (taken over) by the appellants, under the Punjab Jinnah Abadis for Non-Proprietors for in the Rural Area Act, 1986 (The Act 1986) (not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) for Jinnah Abadi scherne/colony, whether such scheme/purpose has been abandoned, and if that being so, 'the respondent (owner) is entitled to the return of such land in terms of Rule 14 of 1983 Rules or on the principles envisaged by the said rule.
2. The above proposition has emerged in the factual backdrop:- that the land in question measuring about 'eight kanals situated in village Goalian, Tehsil Daska District Sialkot was owned by the respondent. This was taken over by the appellants in the year 1990 under the Act, 1986, the rules framed thereunder or the instruction of the Board of Revenue thereof for the purposes of establishing a Jinnah Colony This was accomplished through mutual negotiations and consent of the parties, and that is so envisaged by the relevant mutation, in this regard dated 15-9-1990. The respondent thereunder had also received and acknowledged the receipt of the compensation amounting to Rs,58,093, which amount can be said to be the consideration for the mutually entered into transaction. The take over was never assailed by the respondent on any ground whatsoever. However, according to the respondent allegedly the said land having not been utilized by the Government for the purposes qua which it was taken over, thus the respondent on 13-2-1999 filed the suit that the land should be returned to him as per rule 14 ibid. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 31-10-2005 allowed the suit, which decision was challenged successfully by the appellants in appeal.; accordingly by overturning the verdict, the such of the respondent was dismissed. This appellate decision was assailed by the respondent in civil revision before the learned High Court and the Court while accepting the same, and by setting aside the appellant court decision, has restored the judgment/decree of the learned trial Court.
3. Leave in the matter was granted in the following terms:- "It is argued by the Additional Advocate General that the trial court as also the revisional court has misconstrued the record while holding that the purpose for which the land of the respondent which was acquired and the compensation whereof has been paid to the respondent, duly received by him, has been abandoned, entitling the respondent for the return of the land. There. Is no express order on record that` the Jinnah Abadi Scheme for which the land was acquired had been done away by the competent authority. However, when confronted whether the concept of abandonment as envisaged by Rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 can be given a restricted meaning and would not include where the land/property acquired is not utilized within a particular period/reasonable period of time for the purpose it was acquired, shall be deemed to have been abandoned, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there should be an express abandonment only. Leave is granted to consider the above. However, as only the interpretation of the provisions of law concerned is involved, let this case be set down for hearing in the 3rd week of September, 2012 or on the availability of the Bench thereafter."
4. Learned counsel for the appellants by relying upon the mutation dated 15-9-1990 urged, that the land was not acquired in terms of provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894), therefore, the Rule 14 of the Rules, 1983 shall have no application to the matter in hand, rather the land in question was taken over/acquired through mutual negotiation between the parties in terms of the Act 1986 and the rules framed thereunder, which ^provide three modes of acquiring the land i,e, (i) either as a donation by/from the owner, (ii) by negotiation at the lowest suitable price (iii) or by acquisition under the Act, 1894. In this case on account of the noted mutation the take over was made purely through mutual negotiations and as due price was also paid by the appellants and was accordingly received by the respondent therefore, the transaction shall be construed as a sale in terms of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, as it is not an acquisition under the Act, 1894, resultantly any rule framed under the said Act, shall not be attracted to the instant case and the appellant is not bound to return the land, which as alleged by the respondent is not being utilized for the noted purpose. Without prejudice to the above on the factual plain, it is submitted that the land in question had been acquired for establishing Jinnah Abadi Colony and this object has never eve been abandoned. No evidence on record has been brought by the plaintiff-respondent that the object has been done away with, even till date as per the official record available, the project is very much alive and no direction or the order of abandonment has been passed/made by any competent authority under the law. Learned counsel for the respondent when confronted with the above has submitted that, in fact, it is a compulsory acquisition, which was thrusted upon the respondent and the deal was not, on account of his free consent. However, when questioned, whether the land was acquired in terms of the provisions of Act, 1894 and if any notification under section 4 thereof and/or subsequent notification(s) under the said Act were issued and an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector, as mandated by the Act, the answer is in the negative. But he still maintains the rule 14 ibid shall be applicable.
5. Heard. As per section 10 of the Act 1986 the Government may frame schemes and issue instructions consistent with the Act and the rules framed thereunder relating to which the provisions of Act shall apply. There is no cavil, rather it is a position admitted by both the sides that the instructions were issued by the Board of Revenue on 26-6-1986, the relevant part is reproduced as under:-- "In a Revenue Estate where such state land is not available, the Allotment Committee may select privately owned land which may be available either by donation or by negotiation at the lowest suitable price available, such land may be acquired under the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provided that where the acquisition in by negotiation, the price would be subject to the approval of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector."
' Counsel for the respondent has not been able to refute that the land in question was taken over by virtue of mutual negotiation between the parties; this fact is duly established by the relevant mutation dated 15-9-1990 as well; it is also not controverted that the respondent did received an amount of Rs, 58;093 as a consideration/price of the take over, pursuance to the transaction and this is envisaged by the mutation.
6. In view of the above, there can be no two opinions that the land in question was taken over by the appellants undoubtedly was for establishing Jinnah Abadi and this take over/acquisition was not in terms of the Act, 1894 at all. It was also not by virtue of donation by the owner, rather simpliciter through mutual negotiation between the parties for the price paid to the owner; and for all intents. And purposes the transaction was in the nature of a sale, meeting and satisfying the requirements of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, even if the land has not been utilized so far by the appellants for the purposes of Jinnah Abadi (colony), there is no provision in the Act 1986 or in the 1983 Rules framed thereunder or any instructions issued by any competent authority, that on the lapse of a particular period of time the abandonment should be presumed or even on account of the express abandonment of the object, the land should necessarily under some express provision of law has to be returned to the land owner.. Though in equity it may be permissible.
7. As regards, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that if the scheme is abandoned, even in the cases of take over by mutual consent the land on the abandonment of the scheme or after the lapse of time mentioned in Rule 14 of 1983 it should be impunitively returned to the respondent. We are of the view that the 1983 rules having been framed under a specific statute (i,e, 1894 Act) and are only restricted in application to the cases falling within the purview and the acquisitions under the said Act. It is settled law that the rules are the progeny of a statute, which are made by the competent authority in the exercise of its delegated legislative power under such Act and the application thereof is empowered, confined and limited to the law under which those are framed, and in view case, cannot be extended to some other law, by virtue of relevant principles enunciated for the interpretation of statutes, obviously until and unless the application of such rules is conferred, or borrowed or those are made applicable on the basis of reference (legislation by reference). Therefore, as the benefit of rule 14 ibid was neither available to the respondent nor it could be legally resorted to by the courts below in order to grant degree/relief to the respondent, consequently the impugned judgments of the trial court and that of the learned High Court cannot sustain.
8. Be that as it may, on the query, whether the object to use the land in question for Jinnah Abadi Scheme has been abandoned by the appellants or the purpose is still in vogue, the learned Additional. Advocate-General, Punjab, on instructions in categorical terms, stated that the scheme is very much in force and the Government has every intention to create/establish a Jinnah Abadi on the land. Obviously, we have no reasons to disbelieve this, when no order to abandon the scheme E had been brought on the record by the respondent's side and also is not available on the record, which was examined by us today, as it was available with the officer appearing on behalf of the appellants in the matter, thus it is only on the basis of assumption that the abandonment has been conceived by the courts below.
9. Therefore, this appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is set aside and that of the learned appellate Court is upheld. However, before parting we direct that government that as there is an inordinate and unreasonable and unexplained delay in establishing Jinnah Abadi, thus the project should be completed .Within a period of on be and a half year positively, from today and if that is not so accomplished as directed, while exercising our jurisdiction to do complete justice, we hold that the respondent in equity should be entitled to the return of such land, but on the return of the consideration (price) amount received by him, along with such further amount of compensation as the profit which could accrue on the amount, because the respondent has used the amount for the considerable period. Thus calculation and determination of the further amount, as the accrued profit, shall be made by the Chairman, Board of Revenue keeping in view the rate of profit, which could be fetched on the amount (received by the respondent) had it been invested in some profit bearing scheme of the Government.