1. ' 1492 Acres 2 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land in three different villages of D.G. Khan district were acquired for setting up of a project by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. The possession was taken over on 12-5-1979 and 22-7-1979. The Collector after going through various formalities gave the award on 5-7-1980. The petitioners alongwith many others accepted the compensation, but some of the land owners applied to the Collector for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Senior Civil Judge in answer to the reference has revised the amount of compensation upwards. The petitioners never applied to the Collector for the reference but after the answer of the reference by the Senior Civil Judge in May, 1982 brought a writ petition in July, 1982 claiming that they should also be given the compensation at the same scale on which the Senior Civil Judge has answered the reference. The learned counsel claims that no notice was given to the land-owners under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and even though they had accepted the compensation, they had done so under protest and, in any case, since the mandatory provision of section 12(2) has not been complied with, they cannot be penalised for not having submitted an application within time under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel submits that the acquisition itself is not being, challenged. AB that the petitioners want is that they should be shown similar treatment as those who have won their case in the .Court of the Senior Civil Judge.
2. ' There is no justification for issuing a writ in this case. Reference under section 18 is available to only those persons who do not accept the award. The award was not only accepted by the petitioners, but they even: received the compensation. Even those interested persons who do not accept the award can avail of the remedy under section 18 within a given time. The petitioners did not do so.
3. Therefore, no direction can be given by way of a 'writ for permitting the petitioners to apply for reference at this stage, because it will be in violation of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. As regards requirements of section 12(2), firstly, there, is no material to, show that there is a violation and, secondly, the petitioners cannot claim lack of notice even after receiving the compensation.
5. ' The learned counsel in support of his, case has referred to the judgments of various Courts but they do no answer the 'problem posed in the present case. The question- raised in the present writ petition to my mind is whether a person who has not challenged the award under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act can be permitted to do so after a delay for which he has no explanation. The case of Mst. Sardar Begum PLD 1972 Lah. 458 refers to a different. problem altogether. In that case a house on rent with NIP A had been acquired by the Lahore Improvement Trust and then purchased by N 1 P A from the Lahore Improvement Trust. Mst. Sardar Begum, the owner of the house, challenged the acquisition of the property. In the present case, there is no challenge to the acquisition but only to the compensation. The learned counsel also refers to the case of Umar Farooq v. Acquisition Collector Bannu and 4 others (PLD) 1975 Pesti.
103. It is true that it was observed in that case that any infraction by the Collector of provisions of section 4 renders entire, proceedings without jurisdiction, but it was also clearly observed that a land-owner who has accepted the compensation without protest will be unable to seek even a reference under section 18 muchless to come in appeal against the award of the Collector or challenge it in a constitutional jurisdiction. A case from Indian jurisdiction AIR 1963 Pb. 490 maybe the nearest to the case at hand, but in that case the Court only went to the extent of treating an application from one co-owner to be an application on behalf of all the co-owners. None of the present petitioners claim such a relationship with those who decided to challenge the award.
6. ' For, the above reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed