ORDER KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.- I have heard the above titled two petitions together, the reason being that these are directed against Award No.2993, dated September 23,1993 of the land measuring 80 kanals and 11 marlas, therefore, these are disposed of through this single order.
2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present petitions, briefly stated are that on November 30, 1992, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as Act), was issued for the acquisition of the land measuring 125 kanals and 19 marlas comprising survey numbers 664, 665, 666, 667, 668, 670, 671, 672, 677, 678, 678/1, 679, 540, 541 and 542, situate in village Jamalpur-Aghar, Tehsil and District Kotli, at public expenses for public purpose, namely for the construction of Roli Hills Scheme Tehsil and District Kotli, Azad Kashmir.
3. Later on, with the consent of the petitioners and on the direction of the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir Government, some land which was adjacent to the houses of the petitioners was left out and ultimately, land measuring 80 kanals and 11 maria was acquired, vide impugned Award No.2993 dated September 23,1993. The relevant portion of the Award is reproduced here for the convenience of reference:- '\4ji'vCt93-7-14^'93-167-68^ m f ijA 31 g- 678'678'653*X/^ {3*/ 'if *** ^678/3-14-653,10/^j*A {{ Urdu Text }]
4. The petitioners have filed reference against this award which are still pending disposal before District Judge Kotli. Later on, after the lapse of about i.e months, the first petition was filed by Baqar Ali and 3 others before this Court, whereas the second petition against the same award was filed by Muhammad Hanif and 9 others, after the lapse of about one year on the grounds:-
(i) That the scheme was not approved by the Government, as the Prime Minister, on the application of the petitioners, had given clear direction that land be excluded from the Award;
(ii) That under Section 6 of the Act, it was enjoined upon the Collector Land Acquisition to ensure that the amount of compensation was already deposited with him, in respect of the land under the acquisition. Unless the price of the land was deposited, the Collector was not legally competent to make the award, in the present case, a certificate has been filed by the petitioners to the effect that the amount of compensation was, not deposited with the Collector, as such in the estimation of the petitioners, the Award was nullity in the eye of law; (i.e) That Baqar Ali, petitioner has constructed a house over a portion of the land in dispute and the same is at the stage of completion. During the time of construction of the house, the respondents never informed him that the site of the house was under acquisition proceedings as such the petitioners may refrain from raising the construction. Now the respondents have directed him to demolish the house 'and take away its debris to some other portion of the land belonging to him:
(iv) In the other petition, Muhammad Hanif and other petitioners, have pleaded that the land which was adjacent to their houses should have been left out from acquisition proceedings as the land adjacent to the house of Baqar Ali and others was left out while making the Award.
5. In written statement, the respondents, besides denying the concerned factual aspects of the case, have challenged the maintainability of these writ petitions on two grounds:--
(i) That the petitioners have availed remedy of references as such cannot assail the Award through the present petitions;
(ii) That the petitions are hit by the doctrine of laches and estoppel by conduct.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record made available with these petitions.
7. I have reproduced the relevant portion of the Award in the early part of this order which shows that the Award was made by the Collector land Acquisition with the consent of the petitioners.
Therefore, in my view, the petitioners cannot be allowed to turn round and challenge the Award through the present petitions, as they are estopped by their conduct.
8. The petitioners have availed remedy under the relevant law because admittedly they have filed references under Sections 18 and 30 of the aforesaid Act before District Judge kotli. In my view, the remedy can be availed to the- extent, it is permissible under the relevant law. To aggrieved party, under the scheme of the Act, the acquisition of land cannot be disputed after the Award is made by the Collector. However, the concerned party may agitate grievance in respect of the amount of compensation, the person who, under law, is entitled to receive the same and other collateral matters such as measurement of the area etc. The petitioners, in the present case, therefore, cannot be permitted to agitate their grievance, contrary to their on conduct and scheme of law.
9. The acquisition proceedings in the present case, were initiated in the. Year 1990 which finally culminated in the Award under challenge. The petitions, as said earlier, have been filed after considerable delay. Even if the petitioners are entitled to avail the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, against the Award, even then, in my view, they are found guilty of inexcusable indolence and are estopped by their conduct.
10. In view of the above, I find ho force in these petitions which are dismissed with costs.