' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---Leave was granted in this case in these terms 'leave granted only to consider; whether, compulsory acquisition changes can be allowed in respect of the property acquired for temporary occupation and use for any public purpose'.
2. The relevant background in which this appeal arises is that the respondent in term of section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, henceforth to be referred as the Act, occupied 2003 Kanals 4 Marlas of land including 286 Kanals 6 Marlas owned by the present appellants at the rate of Rs,100 per Jarib for establishing Afghan Refugees Camp. It appears that out of about 100 owners of the land so occupied, only the appellants preferred claim for enhancement of compensation. The learned Acquisition Judge by judgment dated 5-9-1989 while accepting the reference enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs,1,000 per annum per Jarib from the date of occupation with compulsory acquisition charges and interest permissible under the law. Respondent impugned this judgment through Regular First Appeal in the High Court and a learned Division Bench by judgment dated 17- 3-1991 partially accepted the appeal, modified the judgment of the learned Acquisition Judge and fixed the lease amount per Jarib per annum at the following rate;--
(1) Barani Rs,750
(2) Banjar Rs .200
(3) Ghair Mumkin Rs,100 ' It was also observed in this judgment 'the objectors/respondents would also be entitled to compulsory acquisition charges and interest permissible under the law'.
3. Subsequently, the appellants/landowners in execution proceedings insisted on payment of interest and compulsory acquisition charges purportedly under the orders of the Acquisition Judge and learned High Court while relying on the observation with compulsory acquisition charges and interest permissible under the law'. The respondent filed objection petition in the executing Court that as no interest and compulsory acquisition charges are allowable for temporary occupation of the land, therefore, the landowners are not entitled to claim these two items in the execution proceedings. This objection petition was dismissed by the executing Court on 12-10-1992 which was upheld by the Appellate Court through order dated 22-11-1992. The respondent moved the High Court in Writ Petition which was accepted by the impugned order and the claim of the appellants for interest and acquisition charges was declared illegal and not entertainable under the law.
4. It is to be noted that at the leave granting stage, the counsel for the appellants had not pressed their entitlement regarding payment of interest, as such, leave was not granted on that count.
Learned counsel submitted that compulsory acquisition charges are permissible under section 23(2) of the Act which were also allowed by the Acquisition Judge and the High Court in the first round of litigation wherein it was observed that the appellants would also be entitled to compulsory acquisition charges. The reliance on both of them is misplaced. The appellants could only succeed on the basis of the said judgments, if they were able to show their entitlement under the law but the learned counsel was unable to point out any provision of the Act in support of his view-point. As for section 23(2) of the Act, it is applicable in case of permanent acquisition and not for temporary occupation of land under section 35 of the Act. If the appellants consider themselves entitled to any compensation for any damages done to their land which is not provided for in the agreement then they can have recourse to section 36 of the Act. The learned counsel insisted that the respondent should be directed to hand over possession to the appellants as period of lease originally fixed for such occupation under section 35 has expired. The learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that they have several times informed the appellants to occupy the land as they are no more interested in its further occupation. Therefore, we incorporate the statement of Syed Asif Shah learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the official respondent had already asked the appellants to take back their land. The appellants will be at liberty either to take, the lease money as awarded or to take over possession of their land for which the official respondent will provide necessary aid. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed but with no order as to costs.