' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 30-7-2013, passed by learned Executing Court/Referee Court, Chitral, whereby the application filed by appellants for return of property acquired by respondents was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent No,4, acquired land measuring 4.48 Chakuram for the construction of offices and residential houses for the Public Health Department, Chitral. The petitioners being aggrieved of compensation amount, preferred objection petitions before Referee Court, which were partially allowed and amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs,2,50,000 to Rs,3,00,000 per Chakuram. The appeal was filed by petitioners under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same was allowed, whereby amount of compensation was further enhanced from Rs,3,00,000 to Rs,4,00,000 along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest. The appeal filed by respondents before august Supreme Court of Pakistan, was however, dismissed vide judgment dated 25-2-2010. After finalization of the judgment, the appellants preferred execution petition before learned Executing Court but during pendency of this petition, the appellants filed an application under section 144 r/w section 151, C.P.C. For recalling of award and restoration of possession to the appellants/landlords. It was further prayed that in alternate the judgment and decree with respect to grant of 6% interest may also be modified and petitioners be held entitled to the interest as per 'Gushwara' presented by the appellants. This application was dismissed through impugned order dated 30-7-2013, hence the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for appellants contended that the appellants, through judgment dated 9-2- 2012, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,4403 of 2010, it was observed that if the department is not interested to utilize the acquired property for the purpose for which, it was acquired, then the appellants were held entitled, to ask for return of property and this finding was later on affirmed through judgment dated 16-4-2013, passed by this Court in R.F.A. No,3 of 2012, hence the impugned order dated 30-7-2013, was passed in violation of judgment of this Court referred above, which is nullity in the eye of law.
' Arguments heard, record perused.
4. There are two reliefs claimed in the instant appeal. First is with regard to return of property and the second relief is with regard to claim of 6% interest as per Gushwara, submitted by the appellants.
5. As far as the issue of 6% interest is concerned, that has been finalized by this Court in Writ Petition No,4403 of 2010, decided on 9-2-2012, wherein the date of grant of 6% simple interest was determined as the date of possession when certificate in this regard was issued on 12-6-1996. This fact was also affirmed by. This Court vide judgment dated 16-4-2013, passed in R.F.A. No,3 of 2012.
Therefore, it has attained finality.
6. Adverting to the second relief, that the property was liable to be returned to the appellants in the light of observations made in judgment dated 9-2-2012, and judgment dated 16-4-2013, passed by this Court is concerned, this Court is not in agreement with the contention of appellants, on the ground that observation was made on the ground that if the department is not interested, then in that eventuality, the appellants were held entitled to ask for return of the same.
7. It is evident from record that scheme for construction of houses and offices of Public Health Engineering Department was sent through letter dated 8-12-2012, to the concerned quarters to be included in annual development program. A proper evaluation and feasibility report was made, wherein Rupees 10 Millions were approved for the project. It is also evident from record that work order has been issued and the work is in progress on the spot. On 27-7-2013, the details of work done at the spot were provided to the learned Executing Court. It cannot be expected from Government Department to sanction and complete their projects overnight, but first the scheme has to be approved and included in Annual Development Program and after- approval the tenders are flouted. This exercise takes a considerable time, which does not mean that the acquiring department is not interested in the scheme simply because of delay in commencing of project.
Thus, this court cannot hold that the department was not interested to utilize the acquired land for the purpose, for which it was acquired. The details of all the progress is also provided to this Court and have been annexed by the appellant with the instant appeal.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal being without force is dismissed in limine.
Appeal .Dismissed.