1. ' DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, J.---The petitioners have prayed for a directive against the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 to place the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No,2) at his disposal for making payment to the petitioners who according to them are legally entitled to receive the same under protest. The lands of the petitioners were acquired some time in 1985 and the Award was made as far back as 1992 yet the respondent No,1 for whose benefits the lands were acquired has failed to deposit the amount of compensation with the Land Acquisition Officer. It is common ground that the petitioners as well as respondent No,1 were dissatisfied with the . Award and at their distance the Collector made two References to the District Court Hyderabad for determination of the compensation. The Reference made at the instance of the petitioners is said to be pending adjudication in the Court of learned IVth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad but the Reference made at the instance of respondent No,1 was dismissed on 26-7-1994. This order has been challenged in Ist Appeal No, 40/1994 by the respondent No,1 and it is still pending. The record shows that this appeal was filed on 25-10-1994 and since 11-1-1995 it is pending for orders as to non-prosecution for non-compliance of the office objections.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Afzal Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ahmed Ali Memon learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari learned Assistant A.-G. For respondents Nos.2 and 3.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no adequate and alternate remedy available to them for enforcement of payment of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which they are inclined to accept under protest.
4. ' Learned counsel for respondent No,1 submitted that since Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) is still pending, therefore, the remedy is available to the petitioners before the District Court and this petition is not maintainable.
5. ' Learned A.A.-G. Adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No,1 but he also submitted that the total amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has not been deposited by the respondent No, 1 . Accordingly we admit this matter for regular hearing.
6. ' There is no dispute that the total amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act (1894) on 27-6-1993 was Rs,66,90,300. This amount was demanded the Land Acquisition Officer but the respondent No,1 has only deposited Rs,12,50,000. In the parwaise comments submitted by the respondent No,1 it is stated that the Managing Director of the respondent No,1 submitted an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to the Court of District Judge, Hyderabad for determination of the amount of the Award.
7. However, as observed earlier that Reference was dismissed and the appeal bearing No,40/1994 is still pending at the admission stage. Thus it is clear that so far the respondent No,1 has not deposited the remaining amount of award i,e, Rs,54, 40,300.
8. ' In the counter-affidavit submitted by the respondent No,1 it is also stated that since the Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is still pending, therefore, this petition is premature and the petitioners are not entitled to interim relief. It is also averred, inter alia, that the respondents are also not supposed to deposit any amount on the basis of said Award.
9. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 during the course of arguments submitted that after the decision of Reference No,5/1994 the petitioners will have to file the Execution Application and claim the compensation under the provisions of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1970, therefore, they are not entitled to the remedy available under the Constitution.
10. ' Now the crucial questions are whether the respondent No,2 is competent to direct the respondent No,1 to deposit the amount as mentioned in the Award and whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the relief as prayed for notwithstanding the fact that they are dissatisfied with the award and their Reference is pending adjudication in the District Court, Hyderabad.
11. We are of the view that mere pendency of Reference at the instance of the petitioners before the District Court is no bar for claiming the amount which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer after due enquiry. Likewise the Award given by Land Acquisition Officer is merely a tender as to what sum the Government through its agent namely the Collector is willing to pay to the claimant. The Government and the claimant are not bound to accept it but such a tender is binding on the body for whose benefit the land is acquired which in this case is the respondent No, 1 .
12. ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 submitted that due to financial crisis the said respondent is presently not in a position to deposit the balance amount. This we are afraid is hardly a cogent reason. Once the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable property of course in accordance with law they are legally competent to be paid the compensation. Constitution regards right to property as a fundamental right and nobody can be deprived of it without compensation. The Land Acquisition Act itself recognizes this principle and prescribes mode for determination of the price for the land acquired under it. Respondent No,1 is the recipient of the land and is, therefore, under the legal obligation to pay for the value fixed by respondent No,2.
13. Accordingly we allow this petition and the respondent No,1 is directed to deposit the balance sum amounting to Rs,54,40,300 with the respondent No,2. Within two months positively.