MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions No.2603-D, 2604-D, 2605-D, 2606-D and 2607-D of 1989, in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed land belonging to the respondent was acquired by the petitioners for construction of Link Road, New Ravi Bridge, Lahore. For the purposes of acquiring the land, originally a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 8.9.1967 which was published in the Government gazette on 13.10.1967. The matter was finalized through private negotiations and the sale-deed was executed by the private owner in favour of High Way Department on 23.10.1969. However, for lack of funds the road could not be constructed and the department offered the land back to the owners. The petitioners claim that notice was issued to the respondent on 25.1.1971 but he took no steps to avail of the opportunity. Subsequently, the respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to get back the proprietary rights in the disputed land on refund of the sale price. The suit was resisted by the petitioners, who filed the written statement in the trial court. The trial court framed the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 9.9.1986. The petitioners' appeal v&s dismissed by the learned Addl: District Judge, Lahore vide judgment and decree dated 17.5.1989.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at the pre-admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the property was purchased through private negotiations and could not be returned to the owners even after abandoning the purpose for which it was purchased. He also submitted that para 100 of the Standing Order No.28 was not applicable in the present case as the land was not agricultural and was situated within the municipal limits. There is no substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The private negotiations were the necessary steps for finalizing the acquisition of the land for which the notification had already been issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The very title of the sale deed is in the following words:- "Sale deed in respect of the land to be acquired for a/public purpose by private negotiations".
The petitioners did not utilize the land for the public purpose and decided to offer the same back to the owners on refund of the amount of compensation, received by them. They claim to have issued notice to the land owners for the said purpose but both the courts have concurrently held that no such notice was ever served on the respondent. It is clearly admitted in para 3 of the written statement that it was decided in the year 1971 that the land in dispute was no longer required for the proposed project. However, it was added that the land was needed for the purpose of extending its project i.e. Construction of road etc. It is also admitted in para 7 of the written statement that notice was issued to the respondent on 25.1.1971 under para 100 of the Financial Commissioner's Standing Order No.28 (for return of the land on refund of the compensation amount). It was nowhere pleaded that the land was situated within the municipal limits. The respondents themselves took the stand that the land was to be returned in pursuance of para 100 of the Standing Order No.28 referred to above. Now they cannot be allowed to deviate and take a different stand that the Standing Order was not applicable or that the land was situated within the municipal limits. No doubt, they mentioned in the written statement that the land was neither agricultural nor pastoral. However, the revenue record shows that the disputed land was situated in village Fateh Puri, Tehsil and District Lahore and was agricultural land. In their evidence the the respondents had placed copies of the jamabandis as exhibits PI to Ex P5, to show that the land was agricultural. A copy of the notice said to have been issued by the Land Acquisition Collector (appellant No.2) to the respondents clearly shows that the appellant treated the land to be agricultural and offered it back on the basis of para 100 of Standing Order no.28. Moreover, no evidence was led to prove that the land was not agricultural or that the same was situated within the Municipal limits. The courts below have rightly held that after having failed to utilize the land for the purposes for which it was acquired, the land should be returned to the owner/respondents subject to refund of the amount of compensation received by them.
4. The impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to justify interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the CPC.
5. For the foregoing reasons the revision petition is dismissed in limine.