This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.346 and 347 of 1986 involving identical questions of law and facts and arising out of consolidated order dated 10-7-1982 passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, whereby he accepted the appeals filed by the private respondents against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of Ghulshan-e-Ravi Scheme, with the remarks that the respondents should be considered as actual owners.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Gulshan-e-Ravi Scheme of the Lahore Development Authority' was notified on 6-4-1978. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 30-9-1978 and took over possession of the disputed land on 25-1-1978. It is alleged that the private respondent did not own the disputed property at the relevant time, therefore, their names did not appear in the award list. However, the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, on appeal filed by the private respondents, under section 14 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, accepted their claim vide order dated 10-7-1982. The operative part of the order reads thus:--- "After hearing the parties and perusal of the record, I am of the view that the agreement dated 10- 10-1977 which was the basis of the gale transactions occurred well before taking over possession by the LAC/LDA. The other steps taken leading to the actual transfer were a consequence of this agreement. The LDA has to give compensation and exempted plots to the owners of the land and in all fairness the appellants should be considered as the actual owners. The appeals are accepted. The names of the appellants be included in the award list in lieu of the vendors:"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that possession of the Gulshan-e-Ravi Scheme was taken over by the Lahore Development Authority on 25-1-1978, whereas the sale-deed in respect of the disputed property was registered on 28-2-1978 and, therefore, on the basis of the sale-deed the private respondents have not acquired any right either for compensation or for exemption of plots. He further submitted that no benefit can be acquired by the respondents on the basis of agreement of sale dated 10-10-1977. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the respondents entered into an agreement of sale on 10-10-1977 for the sale of land in dispute in consideration of Rs.17,000 in the case of Shahzada Mumtaz and Rs.18,000 in the case of Shahzada Ijaz. On the day of agreement, the total amount was paid to the original owner and possession of the plots was taken over by them. Demarcation at the site was also made by the Patwari. After having purchased the plots, they submitted their registered sale-deeds before the Revenue Authorities for the purpose of mutation. The Collector duly sanctioned the mutations of the plots vide Mutations Nos.11294 and 11295, dated 27-3-1978 and, therefore, for all intents and purposes, the respondents were the owners of the plots in dispute before the announcement of the award.
4. The appellate Authority, after hearing the parties and perusing the material available before it, recorded a finding of fact that on the basis of sale transaction the private respondents became owners of the disputed plots before the petitioners took possession.
5. Additionally the private respondents specifically stated in their memorandum of appeal before the Commissioner, Lahore Division that on the day of agreement, total consideration was paid to the original owners and possession of the disputed plots was taken over by them. This fact is not disputed by the petitioners in the writ petition. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the private respondents that for all intents and purposes the private respondents were the owners of the land in dispute at the relevant time.
6. Be that as it may, the material placed on record does not show that any notice was issued to the interested persons under section 6 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. This is another circumstance for not interfering with the impugned order. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.