' LEHRASAP KHAN, J.-Mian Din Ahmad and 19 others have impugned notification dated 14th October, 1979 issued by the Collector, Lahore District, Lahore, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, pertaining to certain Khasra numbers detail of which is given in the notification. At the bottom of the notification there is a note which reads that all the above-mentioned Khasra numbers except 2243-min are Waqf and only superstructures thereon are required to be acquired. Khasra No, 2243-min which is a private property is required to be acquired alongwith the superstructure thereon. Petitioners felt aggrieved. Hence this petition.
2. Before dealing with the contentions we would like to observe that the dispute concerning this property went up to the Supreme Court, at one stage. It was finally decided by its judgment reported as PLD 1971 SC 376.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners before stating his case drew our attention to certain observations made in that decision which have been incorporated in the petition. Thereafter, he argued that the notification is without lawful authority, for since the land underneath does not belong to the Government and it is only the superstructure which is sought to be acquired, the acquisition is not in accordance with law.
4. Next point urged was that under section 31 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector has power to give alternative accommodation pertaining to the property which is required to be acquired. He also invited our attention in this behalf to the following observations made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its aforementioned judgment : "Before we part with this case, we would like to place on record that at one stage there was a talk of a compromise in this matter. Under its terms, as then stated, it was proposed to give to the Mujawaran some Government lands on the Ravi Road in lieu of the lands which they now occupy, on a reasonable rent. The majority of the Mujawaran were agreeable to this. The judgment in these appeals was, accordingly, kept pending to enable the parties to complete the negotiations.
Ultimately, however, we were informed, that the Government was only prepared to give alternative lands to the persons occupying some 12 Kanals of lands in the immediate vicinity of the Darbar and not to the others. The talks of compromise, accordingly, fell through, but we would again urge upon the Government to consider the possibility of giving alternative land at a reasonable rent to the Mujawaran sought to be displaced from their present holdings, if ever it is decided to do so, in order to help them rehabilitate themselves after the loss of the substantial income that they would have otherwise earned out of the offerings at the Darbar."
The third point urged was that the petitioners filed certain objections which are still pending before the Collector. Those have not since been decided. Petitioners are entitled to a decision on merit about those objections. Without deciding the objections the notification which has been specifically issued under section 4 comes very close to the mala fide action by the respondent.
5. We have also heard Mr. Kiani learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department. His main stance was that the property in question is required for public purpose. The notification is not violative of any provision of law. The petitioners are being dealt with in accordance with law.
6. Crux of the matter is that the objections are still pending. W are of the view that it will not be fair on the part of the Department t proceed under section 17 till the objections are finally disposed of.
Eve second contention of the learned counsel is not devoid of force. Section 3 has been brought on the Statute with a purpose.
7. We are sure that the Collector concerned would take notice of this section and would act in accordance with law. Needless to add tha the observations made by the Supreme Court as reproduced above have also to be taken care of.
8 We don't want to give any finding on the first contention because that is one of the objections taken by the petitioners which shall have to be decided by the competent authority.
9. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Since the matter has been pending since long, the Collector shall decide the matter within three months with an intimation to the Registrar of this Court.