1. This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 2205, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2210, 2211, 2212 and 2213 of 1987, in which common question of law arises for determination.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions are the Lahore Development Authority, Lahore, through its Director-General and the Land Acquisition Collector,L.D.A. Lahore.They feel aggrieved of an order passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore on 1-7-1986, whereby he reviewed hisearler order dated 26-2-1986.
2. 3.In view of the nature of the controversy in these petitions, it is not necessary to state the fact in detail.Suffice it to say that the land situate in Village Bhakeywal, Tehsil and District Lahore was acquired by petitioner No. 2 (hereinafter mentioned as vendees) applied to the land Acquistion Collector for inclusion of their names in the award on the assertion that thy had purchased parcels of acquired land from the previous owner on 5-6-1976 before the possession was taken over by the Collector.It appears that there was some dispute between the previous owner and the vendees, which was resolved through a compromise on 29-1-1985.on 11-2-1985 the vendees again applied for the correction of the award to the Land Acquistion Collector but those applications were dismissed on 7-12-1985.aggrieved, the vendees filed appeals before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, challenging award dated 25-10-1976 on the ground that they having purchased the land in dispute before its acquistion were entitled to compensation exemption of plots but their names do not figure any where in the award.Those appeals were dismissed as having burred by time byu the Commissioner on 26-2-1986.however this order was reviewed by the Commissioner on 1-7-1986, the appeals filed by the vendees were accepted and it was directed that their names be included in the award.
3. 4.Mr.A.R. Arshad Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners has argued that the appeals filed by the vendees under section 14 of the Punjab Acquistion of Land (Housing) Act 1973 were incompetent, insamuch as the said.Act stood repealed with effect from 13-11-1985 and as such section 14 of the said Act could not be availed of by the vendees subsequently.It was also contended that in any case, there was no justificastion for the Commissioner to have reviewed his earlier order nor the appeals, which were clearly barred by time, could be accepted.
4. 5.Syed Muhammad Zainul Abidin, Advocate for the contesting respondent has on the other hand , contended that acquistion having taken place under the Punjab Acquistion of land (Housing ) Act 1973 not withstanding the repeal of the aforesaid Act, the provisions relating to appeal could be availed of by the land-owners and subsequent change in law was of no effect.It was also arguedby the learned counsel that any decision taken by the land Acquistion collector regarding compen sation is an award within the alw and is therefore, appealable.On these premises, it was maintained that order dated 7-12-1985 rejecting the applications for grant of compensation by the Land Acquistion collector amounted to award and as such the appeals filed by the vendees on 29- 12-1985 were within time.
5. 6.There is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of the repeal of the Punjab Acquistion of Land (Housing) (Repeal )Act, 1985 the right of appeal was taken away.It is since along well-settled that the right of appeal vests in a person the moment the lis commences and the subsequent change in law cannot, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, take away that right.
6. 7.However, the matter does not rest there as the next question, which arises is as to whether order dated 6-2-1986 of the Commissioner dismissing the appeals filed by the vendees as barred by time suffered from an error of the nature specified in section 14 of the Punjab Acquistion of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 so as to justify its review.
7. 8.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that answer to this question has to be rendered in the negative.The appeals which the respondent filed were directed not against the order of rejection of their applications for grant of compensation on 7-12-1985 but against the award made by the Land Acquistion Collector on 25-10-1976.in fact there is no mention of any application for grant of compensation or correction having been filed by the vendees in the memorandum of appeal at all.The order passed by the Land Acquistion Collector dated 7-12-1985 was not the subject matter of the appeals, which were filed on 29-12-1985 challenging the award dated 25-10-1976.The appeals were clearly barred by time and the Commissioner was correct in dismissing the same as such.
8. 9.It is indeed strange that while hearing review application an altogether new case was allowed to be set up.As already observed, the appeals before the Commissioner were directed against the award dated 25-10-1976 and not the subsequent order dated 7-12-1985 and the same were within time.Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to point but anything in the memorandum of appeals from which it can even be remotely inferred that the vendees had challenged the order dated 7-12-1985 in the appeals.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, these petitions are allowed and the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 1-7-1986 is decalred to be without lawful autyhority and of no legal effect with the result that his earlier order dated 26-2-1986 stamds restpred.
10. No order as to costs.