' The Petitioner challenges acquisition proceedings and prays that the entire acquisition which resulted in Award dated 5.7.2011 be declared void being illegal.
2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the owner of land in Mauza Kamahan, Tehsil and District Lahore. The land was acquired by the Respondents pursuant to Award No, 10/2011 dated 5.7.2011. The basic grievance of the Petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings were carried out without any notice to it, in particular without issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act"). It is the case of the Petitioner that three addresses, for the purposes of service to the Petitioner, were available with the Respondents yet the Petitioner was not served at any of the given addresses. Learned counsel argued that non-service of notice under Section 9 of the Act is fatal to the acquisition process and being a mandatory requirement, its non- compliance would vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings and the Award to the extent of the Petitioner be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases titled Mst. Sardar Begum v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and 3 others (PLD 1972 Lahore 458), Hyderabad Development Authority and another v. Karam Khan Shoro (1985 SCMR 45), W.Z.
Studios Ltd, Lahore through Managing Director v. The Deputy Commissioner, Lahore District Courts, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1996 Lahore 349), Muhammad Hussain and 2 others v. Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore through Member (Revenue) and 4 others (2003 MLD 801), Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway Authority, Lahore and another v. Javed Malik and others (2009 SCMR 634), Amir Aftab Hussain v. Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab Provincial Highway Department Rawalpindi and 4 others (PLD 2012 Lahore 440), Lt. Col. Iqbal Janjua v. Military Estate Officer, Lahore and 3 others (PLD 2013 Lahore 273) and an unreported judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 9.9.009 titled Multan Development Authority v. Ashiq Muhammad Khan and another (Civil Review Petition No, 72/2007).
3. In furtherance of his case, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon three notices appended with the rejoinder to the report and parawise comments filed by the Respondents. He argued that in terms of the notices appended someone by the name of Muhammad Hanif showing himself to be an employee of the Petitioner, received the notices issued under Section 9 of the Act. He argued that the Petitioner does not have any employee by the name of Muhammad Hanif. He further argued that notices have also been issued at 61-West End Building, the Mall, Lahore, which building was burnt down on 14.10.2006. Hence no notice could have been served at that address. In addition the learned counsel argued that the Petitioner is a company which has to be served through its Directors. Hence service was never effectively made on the Petitioner as required under Section 9 of the Act. Hence this Petition.
4. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the Respondents. It is their case that the land was acquired for the Ring Road Project, Southern Loop Village Kamahan. Earlier, other land of the Petitioner, in the same vicinity was acquired for Phase I of the same Ring Road Project. Therefore the entire acquisition proceedings were in the knowledge of the Petitioner and its Directors. Learned Law Officer argued that 656 Kanal 8 Marla 130 Sq.Ft and was acquired for Phase II Project. There were 475 affectees whose land was acquired and who have been compensated. Only two references have been filed, which are still pending. There has been no challenge to the Award. The total land is in the possession of the Government except for the land of the Petitioner, which possession could not be taken on account of the pending litigation. She further argued that the Petitioner did not challenge notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.6.2008 or Section 17
(4) and (6) of the Act on 14.10.2009 nor the Award dated 5.7.2011 ("Award"). The Petitioner has only challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that it has not received notice under Section 9 of the Act. She argued that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed as the process was duly followed and the proceedings have attained finality through the Award. It is the case of the Respondents that the requirements of Section 9 of the Act were duly complied with. In support of her arguments, learned Law Officer produced the original record to show that notices under Section 9 of the Act were. Issued. Copies of the said notices have also been placed on the file. Learned Law Officer further argued that in terms of Section 8 of the Act, the land was marked out, measured and planned in the presence of the representative of the Petitioner, the report of which was completed on 17.5.2011. Further, a report on the status of the property was issued on 4.6.20'11 wherein a visit was made to the property of the Petitioner. Therefore, it is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was aware of the acquisition and the process leading up to the Award. She argued that if the Petitioner disputes receiving the notices through its employee or any other means, then the same amounts to disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in the instant writ petition.
5. Heard and record perused.
6. The basic question before the Court is whether notices under Section 9 of the Act were duly served on the Petitioner. The Petitioner has essentially raised two arguments before the Court. The first is that it did not receive any notice under Section 9 of the Act as Muhammad Hanif is not an employee of the Petitioner. The second argument is that service for the purposes of the Petitioner should have been made on its Directors since the Petitioner is a company. The relevant Section 9 of the Act reads as follows:-- Notice to persons interested.--(1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and the claims to compensation for all interest in such land may be made to him
(2) Such, notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature 'of their respective interest in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interest, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent.
(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorized to receive service on their behalf', within the revenue-district in which the land is situate.
(4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere and has no such agent the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and registered under Part III of the (Indian Post Office Act, 1866).
' The intent of Section 9 of the Act is to inform all interested persons that the government intends to take possession of the land that is to be acquired. Section 9(1) & (2) of the Act requires a public announcement to all interested persons to appear personally or through their agents before the Collector at the date, time and place specified in the notice to claim their compensation or to raise objections against the measurements made under Section 8 of the Act. The reason to provide for a public notice is to ensure knowledge of the acquisition proceedings in the area because it may be difficult to ensure personal service of every owner of land. This notice is a general notice which is to be displayed at convenient public places so as to make interested persons aware of the meeting where they may raise their claims for compensation or their objections, if any to the measurements of the land. Section 9(3) of the Act requires the Collector to also serve the same notice on the occupier of the land and on all interested persons through their representatives or agents. This sub-section does not override the requirements of Section 9(1) of the Act as it would virtually render Section 9(1) as redundant. The intent of the law under Section 9 of the Act is that notice must be served on interested persons through a general announcement, representative or the agent of the interested persons and if none of the above is available then notice shall be served on the interested persons through post at his last known address. The importance of the notice under Section 9 of the Act is evident from reading Section 9(2) of the Act. Section 9(2) of the Act provides that all interested persons can raise claims for compensation or object against the measurement of the land before the Collector. Therefore, if notices under Section 9 of the Act are not issued, the non-issuance of notice will create a right to challenge ,the acquisition or award before the competent forum.
7. Section 45 of the Act is also important as it provides for the mode and manner in which notices must be served. Sub-section (1) requires notices be served by 'delivering or tendering a copy of the notice; sub-section (2) requires that whenever it is practical service of notice shall be made on the persons named therein. When read with Section 9, Section 45(1) & (2) require that notices should be delivered to persons interested not only through public announcement but also through the occupier of the land, the representative or the agent of interested person. Where none of the above are available notices may be served on the named persons in the notices after an order is made by the Collector or Judge. Sub-section (3) of the same Section provides that service may also 'be made through affixation of the notice at some conspicuous place in the office of the officer issuing the notice or in the office of the Collector or on the land to be acquired. Since the Act specifically provides for the manner in which notices must be served for the purposes of the Act, effectiveness of service will be seen in terms of Section 45 of the Act. The argument that service should have been made on the Directors of the Petitioner will not be applicable because the Act provides for the mode and manner in which notices should be served. While Section 9 of the Act specifies to whom notices must be issued, Section 45 of. The Act provides for the manner in which notices must be issued. Therefore for the purposes of the Act effective service is made on persons interested in the land in the manner provided for in Section 45 of the Act. Importantly service is effective by delivery or tender of the notice on the interested person through the occupier of the land, the representative or the agent of the interested person and through affixation of the notice.
8. In the event that notices are not served under Section 9 of the Act, a person interested in the land could challenge the award under Section 18 of the Act. The challenge under Section 18 of the Act must be made within six weeks from the date of the award where the applicant was present before the Collector and six months in all other cases. Where service of notice is disputed, remedy of. Such cases would be before the competent Court or the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, as the case may be, as the factum of service has to be established.
9. I have also gone through the original file. The notices relied upon by the Respondents provide the details of the land, the time, date and place of the meeting for the purposes of compensation and objections. The Respondents have stated that pursuant thereof 89 representatives of 475 affectees attended the meeting held on 4.6.2011 at Government High School Kamahan. Subsequently compensation was paid to all the affectees. Only two references have been filed disputing the compensation amount. The acquisition proceedings and the Award have not been challenged by any of the 475 affectees. Therefore except for the Petitioner no other affectee disputes the acquisition proceedings or the Award meaning thereby that no other affectee disputes service of notice under Section 9 of the Act. Also relevant is that the acquisition proceedings commenced on 17.6.2008 with the issuance of the notice under Section 4 of the Act and were finalized on 5.7.2011 by the Award. Throughout this time, there has been no challenge to the proceedings or the acquisition.
10. The basic question that has to be seen is whether the Respondents were compliant with the requirements of Section 9 read with Section 45 of the Act. From what has been argued and from the original record produced, the Respondents complied with the requirements of Section 9 of the Act. Public notice was issued in 2011. The fact that the meeting took place on 4.6.2011 and was attended by 87 persons testifies to this fact. The Petitioner does not deny the notice. The Petitioner does not deny this notice. The Petitioner denies receiving notices under Section 9(3) of the Act on the ground that Muhammad Hanif is not its employee. This essentially is a factual dispute, the veracity of which cannot be decided in constitutional jurisdiction. So far as the legal argument that the Petitioner being a company could only be served through its Directors, the same is misconceived as the effectiveness of service will be determined by Section 45 of the Act. It is relevant to note that nothing has been placed on the file in terms of the statutory record maintained by the Petitioner under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 on who were its Directors at the relevant time. The Petitioner has relied upon Annexure 'B to establish the names of its Directors.
Annexure 'B' is a copy of the register Haqdaran Zameen which simply lists the names of three individuals with their respective ownership in the land. The said document does not name the Petitioner as the owner of the property. The Petitioner has also appended different sales deeds which have been executed by the individuals named in the register Haqdaran Zameen for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of the Petitioner. Furthermore it is also noted from the record that the Petitioner is a co-sharer in the land. Where notices were received by other co-sharers, the same shall be deemed effective against the Petitioner. Therefore, even on the basis of the facts contained in the writ petition, the contention of the Petitioner that service had to be made on its Directors is not made out.
11. With reference to the cases cited by learned counsel for the Petitioner 1985 SCMR 45 (supra), 2003 MLD 801(supra), PLD 2012 Lahore 440 (supra) and PLD 2013 Lahore 273 (supra) are all distinguishable on the ground that in all these cases the Respondents did not assert that notices were served under Section 9 of the Act. Hence the Court deemed it appropriate to interfere inthe matter. In PLD 1972 Lahore 458 (supra), the dispute pertained to the address where service was made. The Court found that since the report on service stated that the address could not be found, the Collector should have attempted to find the persons who had to be served. In the instant case, although the Petitioner claims that the building at 61 West End Building, the Mall, Lahore burnt down in 2006, it is not its case that the property is not in the ownership of the Petitioner. Furthermore, in terms of the documents produced before the Court, the Petitioner has mentioned the same address for the purposes of contact even after 2006. Reliance was placed specially on the indemnity bond issued on 13.11.2007. Hence even though the building had burnt down, the Petitioner maintained the said address for the purposes of contact. Finally, the Petitioner has relied upon an unreported judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 9.9.009 titled Multan Development Authority v. Ashiq Muhammad Khan and another (Civil Review Petition No, 72/2007) to urge the point that a personal notice must be made. The said case however is not applicable to the law under question and even on the basis of what was held, the case is not relevant to the instant dispute because the dispute in hand relates to effectiveness of service and not of issuance of notice simplicitor.
12. In view of what has been stated above, no case for interference is made out. Petition is dismissed.