TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, J.---This petition was admitted to full hearing on 16-9-1996 inter alia on the ground that "whether an objection petition filed by affectees under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is bound to be referred by the Collector to the Court of reference or it remains his discretion to withhold the same".
2. The brief facts, relevant for disposal of this case are that, respondent No.2 the Chairman WAPDA acquired land, through respondent No.1, for the construction of Ghazi Brotha Dam. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued vide No.726/Rev: dated 10-1-1994 for acquiring land comprising of large number of different Khasras.
3. Award No.3 of Mauza Ghazi was given by respondent No.1 on 31-2-1995. In the Award, the amount of compensation was determined for different classes of land, including, trees, building structure or other installantion such as electricity poll, tubewells etc.
4. The subject-matter of the award included some of the Khasra numbers of which the petitioners were owners. It has been admitted in the petition that petitioners are occupying land which does not belong to them, purportedly, under some misconception on the ground, that the said land was adjacent to their property, and they, in their own wisdom, considered such property under their ownership. They further stated that under such wrong assumption they have effected improvements in the, said property.
5. That on acquisition of land the petitioners made reference for grant of compensation in respect of improvements carried out by them in the same land, which did not belong to them. The Collector, while accepting their demand, gave them the compensation amount in respect of constructed house and tubewell, but did not grant compensation in respect of other improvements made by them, including protection wall. Consequently, they filed an objection petition under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and wanted the same to be referred to Court.
6. The objection petition has been placed on this file on page 32. In the objection petition petitioners claim compensation amount at the rate of Rs.10,00,000 per Kanal, Rs.3,50,000 per tubewell, Rs.1,00,000 for machinery installed for water supply and Rs.2,80,000 for electricity poll, transformer and other like accessories. They have also claimed the development charges.
7. The learned Collector, on receipt of said objection petition dated 27-6-1996, did not refer the same to Court for determination and has passed order dated 8-8-1996, which is impugned before us.
8. Before entering into the question, as formulated at the time of admission of this petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, brought to our notice that, the petitioner is in no manner entitled to any relief within the scope of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He produced two certified copies of objection petition filed before District Judge Haripure, by the present petitioner which are pending. The subject matter of those petitions is the same, as the present petition. Beside, the petitioner has already taken the compensation in respect of house and tubewell, allegedly installed by him at the basis of some other Khasra number and, through this petition, under the garb of bona fide possession of the land which were not belonging to the petitioner, he wants compensation with regard to the same improvements.
We have perused the contents of the said objection petition and will agree with the learned counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner; is seeking equitable relief from this Court, but as it appears from the record, he has not come up with clean hands. He has suppressed the facts. The claim, in the instant writ petition is based on Khasra number 469, 470, 454, 453, 1373/1169/455, whereas the same claim is made in respect of same subject matter on the basis of Khasra number 1372/1169/455, in objection petition dated 20-3-1996, and on Khasra number 1524/774 in petition dated the same, in respect of other improvements.
A reading of impugned order dated 8-8-1996 clearly show that petitioners were never entered in ' khana malkiat' as owner nor on basis of possession.
9. Learned counsel relied on PLD 1953 Peshawar 65 (Ghulam Haqani etc. v. Mst. Zulekha etc) to which a reference is also made in the order of Collector, which judgment has held: "Normally a wrong-doer cannot claim any compensation for the improvements made by him, but where a person has taken possession of certain land by mistake, believing that land to be his own, and builds on it or improves the land an equity arises in his favour, which entitles him to claim compensation for the improvements. This will be on the well---known principle, on which section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act is based, namely, that a man cannot enrich himself at the expense of another."
We do not want to disagree with the above cited judgment, which is laying down the principle of application of good conscious, but, would observe that a person, who knowingly make improvement on land which in fact never belong to him, and who has taken all the benefit of its produce for years, will not be entitled to compensation amount; because, what he spent was at his own risk, and cannot take benefit of his mistake. We would not make any further observation on the issue, less this may not prejudice the cause of the petitioner before the Court where his reference is pending.
10. There are no merits in this petition, as such, the same is dismissed, with order, to pay cost to the respondents.