' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---We have heard this petition at length today and had also heard the case earlier. The petition arises out of land acquisition proceedings whereby land measuring 5 kanals, 18 marlas was acquired pursuant to a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued as far back as 21-1-1975. The litigation in this case has been long drawn out and the parties have been contesting their respective claims/positions before various forums such as the revenue forums, the Civil Court and the High Court.
2. The petition, however, can easily be disposed of on the basis of a very basic and fundamental question which has arisen in the matter. The land was acquired, as noted above, under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent whose father was the land owner remained dormant for many years but then in 1993 filed a civil suit. It vas his case inter alia, that firstly, the land should not have been acquired, secondly, even if it was acquired, the same should be returned to him because he was in possession thereof and thirdly, because the Province/Fisheries Department owned excess land including nazool land which could have been utilized for the purpose of setting up a fish seed hatchery/nursery by the Fisheries Department of the Province. It is somewhat unfortunate that the revenue department assumed jurisdiction and proceeded to deal with the matter as if it was a question arising within the jurisdiction of the revenue forums. This clearly was an erroneous premise because the acquisition of land could only have been challenged either through civil suit or by means of a writ petition. Enhancement of compensation for the land could have been, however, sought under the Land Acquisition Act itself.
3. The revenue forums in nutshell have proceeded to decide the case by holding that the land acquired should be returned to respondent Rana Abdul Hameed etc. It is quite clear that the revenue hierarchy does not feature anywhere in land acquisition proceedings. No Court/forum within the revenue hierarchy can, therefore, set aside the acquisition of land or the orders which have been passed including notifications under sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act pursuant to which title in the land stood transferred to the Fisheries Department of the Province.
4. Considering the above, we are clear that the orders including the impugned judgment proceeded on the erroneous premise, that the revenue forums had jurisdiction in the matter.
Learned counsel representing the respondents acknowledged that the Revenue forums had no jurisdiction to interfere in land acquisition proceedings, or to direct the Government to return the acquired land to the respondents. The orders of the Revenue authorities, therefore, being without jurisdiction, are set aside. This petition, as a consequence, is converted into appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. It is stated, however, that compensation for the acquired land has not yet been paid to the respondents land owners. The said respondents, subject to law, may avail whatever remedies are available to them under the law because the learned Law Officer states that the compensation awarded by the LAC was deposited with the Collector in 1976.