' JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---The facts leading to this writ petition are few and simple and may be recapitulated as under :--
(a) that in the recent past, Director Peshawar Development Authority initiated proceedings for the acquisition of land measuring 517 Kanals and 10 Marlas situated within the limits of. Hazar Khawani for the construction of Ring Road;
(b) that consequently notification under section 50 of N.-W.F.P. Urban. Planning Ordinance, 1978 was issued on 11-8-1990. This was followed by notice under section 52 which was also issued on 11- 8-1990;
(c) that the affected land owners, despite such notices, neither appeared before the concerned Collector nor pressed objections regarding acquisition or the rate of land by way of compensation.
On the basis of the material placed before him, the Collector assessed compensation at Rs,5295 per Marla, on the basis of two years sale average. Accordingly award was announced, in the above terms, on 13-104990;
(d) that feeling aggrieved by the award in question, petitioners, 37 in numbers, preferred appeals to the Commissioner, who, in turn, entrusted the same to Additional Commissioner, Peshawar for adjudication. The appeals, it may be mentioned, were accompanied by applications under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
(e) that it transpired from the record that no proper notice was served on the landowners and that even the award was framed in ex parte manner. This being so, the delay in filing appeals was condoned and all appeals were entertained for full hearing.
(f) that the record shows that some of the appeals were sent back to the Collector for re- consideration of award.
(g) that in the meantime, the representative of the landowners and Peshawar Development Authority arrived at mutual agreement to enhance the rate of compensation from Rs,5,295.62 to Rs,8,595 (i,e, from Rs,5,48,667 + 15% i,e, Rs,82,21,450. Total amounting to Rs,6,30,31,117 to Rs,8,89,58,250 + 15% Rs,1,33,43,737. Total amounting to Rs,10,23,01,987.). The award was therefore re-framed by the Collector on 25-5-1993 so as to give full effect to the mutual agreement referred to above. The enhanced rate was taken to represent the true and real market value of the acquired land;
(h) that in the changed situation, the Additional Commissioner accepted the enhanced rate at Rs,8,295 per marla, in respect of the land acquired and to this extent, the appeals were accepted by him by his order dated 30-8-1993;
(i) that the Provincial Urban Development Board, through its Managing Director, has called in question the validity of the order of the Additional Commissioner by filing this and the connected writ petitions;
(j) that this is how, the facts, sketched in brief out line, stand as above.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record with some degree of care.
3. The impugned order is attacked on two grounds, firstly the Additional Commissioner has erroneously condoned the delay in relation to time-barred appeals and secondly, he has ignored the relevant provisions of Ordinance, 1978 and that, therefore, he was not justified legally in enhancing thevalue of the land. Neither of the two limbs of the contention is worthy of any consideration. It may he stated, at the out set, that the Additional Commissioner had the inherent jurisdiction to condone the delay and the reasons furnished for that were that the award was ex parte and that no legal notice was served upon the landowners so as to enable them to press their objections. It is now well ettled principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard and that the law favours decision on merits after hearing both the parties. Writ Petition is competent only of if the impugned order is wholly void, is without jurisdiction or a nullity in the eye of law. Needless to mention that, certainly, the order sought to he challenged does no suffer from jurisdictional error or defect and cannot, therefore, be impeached on this ground/score.
4. It is also to be noted that the representatives of the land owners and those of Peshawar Urban Development Board had agreed, before the Collector, to enhance the rate by mutual consent. In the circumstances none of the affected parties can be permitted to resile from the settlement which was the result of their mutual agreement. The doctrine of estoppel comes in picture and precludes the petitioners from questioning the validity of the enhancement of rate of compensation in respect of the land so acquired.
5. The price spiral which is going towards, almost daily, in respect of the land situated close to the roads/commercial markets cannot be brushed aside from our consideration. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the enhancement is both equitable and fair. No legal infirmity is involved therein.
6. This writ petition is devoid of any substance and is accordingly rejected with costs.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the connected Writ Petitions i,e,, Writ Petition No,350/94 P.U.D.B. v.
Ikramullah etc. W.P. No,351/94 P.U.D.B. v. Gul Nazir, W.P.No,352/94 P.U.D.B. v. Amir Zaman Khan etc., W.P. No,353/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Rifaqat Shamim etc., W.P. No,354/94 P.U.D.B. v. Murd Khan, W.P.No,355/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Qamar Sultan, W.P. No,356/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Sharafat Begum etc., W.P.
No, 357/94 P.U.D.B. v. Faridullah etc., W.P.No,358/94 P.U.D.B. v. Gul Nabi etc., W.P. No,359/94 P.U.D.B. v.
Mst. Badshahgai etc., W.P. No,360/94 P.U.D.B. v. Muntazir Shah etc., W.P. No,365/94 P.U.D.B. v. Momin Khan etc., W.P. No,366/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Gohar Jana etc., W.P. No,367/94 P.U.D.B. v. Tehmash Khan etc., W.P. No,368/94 P.U.D.B. v. Ali Gohar etc., W.P. No,369/94 P.U.D.B. v. M. Akbar etc., W.P.No,370/94 P.U.D.B. v. Ayub Khan, W.P.No,371/94 P.U,D.B. v. Rokhan Khat etc., W.P. No,372/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Dil Afroza etc., W.P. No,373/94 P.U.D.B. v. Hazrat Gul etc., W.P. No,374/94 P.U.D.B. v. Ghulam Muhammad, W.P. No,375/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Rojan, W.P. No,376/94 P.U.D.B. v. Amanullah etc., W.P. No,377/94 P.U.D.B. v. Hawas Khan etc., W.P. No,378/94 P.U.D.B. v. Shahadat Khan, W.P. No,379/94 P.U.D.B. v Zafeer Gul etc., W.P. No,380/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Saidana etc., W.P. No,381/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Shujuat Sultan, W.P.
No,382/94 P.U.D.B. v. Mst. Khisho etc., W.P. No,383/94 P.U.D.B v. Mst. Parizadgai etc., W.P. No,384/94 P.U.D.B. v. Gulbar etc., W.P. No,385/94 P.U.D.B. v. Shakirullah etc., W.P. No,386/94 P.U.D.B. v. Rashid, W.P.
No,387/94 P.U.D.B. v. Shoukat Ali 388/94 P.U.D.B. v. Arif Gul etc. And W.P. No,389/94 P.U.D.B. v. Masjid Kandi Haya Khel are also dismissed with costs.