' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No, 11480 of 1998 and Writ Petition No, 1439 of 1999 as both the petitions arise out of the same award and proceedings.
2. The Collector, Multan acting under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued a Notification published on 7-5-1976 specifying some land likely to be acquired by the Provincial Government at the public expense for the public purpose of construction of Multan bye-pass mile Nos.0 to 17 in Multan District. A corrigendum to the said Notification was published on March 18, 1977 to amend the first mentioned Notification so as to include, inter alia, 15 Acres of land in Taraf Ravi.
This Notification was published on 21-3-1977. The land measuring 38 Kanals, 14 Marlas situated in Taraf Ravi Multan City belonging to the petitioner also formed subject-matter of the said Notification as amended.
3. It appears that some one in the Government hierarchy came-out with the idea of getting the land, apparently for a song, by getting the project of construction of the said Bye-pass declared as a "Housing Scheme" under the provisions of Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. A Notification was accordingly issued on 9-12-1978 by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan under section 4(1) of the said Act of 1973 declaring that, inter alia, the land belonging to the petitioner was likely to be needed by the Multan Development Authority (MDA) as its expense for a public purpose, namely, Construction of Multan Bye Pass from Vehari Road to Bahawalpur Road Multan which shall be deemed to be a Housing Scheme under section 25 of the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976. This Notification was published on 9-12-1978. Meanwhile the M.D.A. Prepared the scheme known as Construction of Multan Bye-Pass which received the approval of the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council, Government of Pakistan on 29-5-1978. This Notification was issued on 5-3-1979 and published on 10-3-1979 but was to have retrospective effect from 29-5-1978. This was followed by publication of another Notification under section 4(1) of the said Act of 1973 read with Chapter VI of the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976 by the Deputy Commissioner, Multan, declaring that, inter alia, the land of the petitioner, is required by M.D.A. At its expense for the construction of Multan Bye-Pass Phase-II from Vehari Road to Bahawalpur Road,. Tehsil and District Multan. This Notification was published on 21-1-1980.
4. Feeling aggrieved of the said acrobatics of the respondents, the petitioner filed writ petition No, 7932 of 1980 in this Court. The grievance was that a malicious attempt is being made to deprive the petitioner of her land without adequate compensation. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 23-12-1990. M.D.A. Filed I.C:A. No, 12 of 1991 against the said decision which was dismissed on 18- 3-1992. M.D.A. Then filed C.A. No,492 of 1993 in the Supreme Court which was heard and decided on 26-5-1998. This judgment would be needing reference as the present judgment proceeds. For the moment, suffice it to state that the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal with the direction that the said Notification dated 21-1-1980 shall be deemed to be a Notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation for the acquisition of land of the petitioner will be awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, Multan was further directed to deliver the award of compensation, after hearing the parties and also to determine the authority who will make payment of the compensation to the, petitioner. The Collector was directed to give the award by 31-8-1998.
5. After the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner approached the Land Acquisition Collector with an application dated 30-6-1998 accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment.
Proceedings were initiated and vide an award, dated 26-8-1998, the Land Acquisition Collector City Sub-Division, Multan assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs,20,000 per A marla with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Thereafter, on the application of the M.D.A., the said Land Acquisition Collector proceeded to review the award .And reduced the compensation from Rs,20,000 per marla to Rs,10,000 per marla vide an award, dated 4-10-1998. This, the Land Acquisition Collector, according to him, has done in exercise of his powers under section 163 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
6. Writ petition No, 11480 of 1998 has been filed by Mst. Nasreen Zohra (hereinafter referred to be as the land owner) to challenge the award, dated 4-10-1998 while Writ Petition No, 1439 of 1999 has been filed by the MDA for setting aside of both the awards i,e, one dated 4-10-1998 and the other dated 26-8-1998.
7. Syed Muhammad Ali Gilani, Advocate for the land owner argues that the Land Acquisition Collector had no jurisdiction whatsoever to review the award, dated 26-8-1998. Mr. Muhammad Ameen Malik, learned counsel for the MDA, on the other hand submits that both the awards i,e, one, dated 26-8-1998 and the other, dated 4-10-1998 are liable to be set aside as the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) has not heard MDA and further has not determined as to who is to pay the compensation awarded.
8. I have gone through the copies of the documents appended with both the writ petitions. So far as the factual background of the ease is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties and the same is in accord with the narration of facts made above. These writ petitions raise three questions for decision:
(i) Whether the Land Acquisition Collector has the power to review an award made and published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?;
(ii) whether it can be said that M.D.A was not heard by the LAC while announcing the award on 26- 8-1998 and reviewing it on 4-10-1998? And;
(iii) whether the impugned awards spell-out as to who is to pay compensation assessed?
9. As to the first question, section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ordains the LAC to inquire into the objections which any person interested or, inter alia, a local authority, has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to---
(a) the measurement made under section 8;
(b) the value of the land at the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) and;
(c) into the respective interests of the person claiming the compensation.
' Thereafter, he is to make an award under his hand of the true area of the land, the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and the apportionment of the said compensation. Section 12 of the said Act confers finality upon the award so made under section 11.
Section 12-A of the said Act authorises the LAC either of his own motion or on the application of any of the parties to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award arising therein from any accidental slip or omission.
10. A wain reading of sections 11, 12 and 12-A of the said Act would show that the award made under section 11 of the said Act shall be final by virtue of section 12 of the said Act and the LAC has only the power to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake and that too arising from any accidental slip or omission. The Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, has no power whatsoever to review the award. It may be added here that review is a substantive right and that has to be conferred on a party by express letters of the law. Reference be made to "Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner and others" (PLD 1970 SC 1). There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 conferring a right of review on any of the parties to the proceedings before LAC neither is there any power vested in LAC to review an award of his own motion.
11. The LAC seems to be aware of the said legal position and that is why has claimed while reviewing the award to having done so in exercise of his power under section 163 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. This statement in the award, dated 4-10-1998 is simply preposterous. In the first instance, the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 is a code in itself. It defines the powers and jurisdiction of the authorities that are its creatures i,e, the Revenue Officers. The Land Acquisition Collector is not a creature of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. He is a creature of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as defined in section 3(c) of the Act of 1894. The mere fact that the LAC also happens to hold office of the Collector under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 does not authorise him to invoke the powers conferred on him as a Revenue Officer under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, to review an award made by him as a Land Acquisition Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. I, therefore, hold that the Land Acquisition Collector had no jurisdiction to review the award dated 26-8-1998 .Needless to add that the Land Acquisition Collector has not even feigned that he is correcting some clerical or arithmetical error arising out of accidental slip or omission in the matter of making the award dated 26-8-1998.
12. As to the second question, the learned counsel for MDA relies in the first instance on the observations of the Supreme Court in judgment, dated 26-5-1998 to the effect that the LAC shall hear the parties before making award. In the second instance he relies on the provision of section 9(5) added to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide section 8 of the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 1969. According to the said provision of law, the LAC is to serve a notice of inquiry to be held under section 11 of the said Act, not less than 15 days prior to the date fixed under subsection (2) of section 9 for determination of claims and objections, inter alia, the local authority for which the land is being acquired and require it to depute a duly authorised representative to attend the enquiry on its behalf for the purpose of making objections to the measurement of the land, claims to any interest in the land or the amount of any compensation. According to the learned counsel, a notice in strict accordance with the said provision of law was not served.
' Learned counsel for the landowner on the other hand, submits that a notice was not only duly served but was also replied to by the M.D.A. And thereafter M.D.A. Did not care to join the proceedings.
13. I find that the Deputy Commissioner, Multan (who is included in the definition of a Collector stated in section 3(c) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894) issued a letter to the Director Estate and Land Management of M.D.A. On 6-8-1998. A copy of this letter is Annexure H to writ petition No, 1439 of 1999. According to this letter, M.D.A. Was called upon to depute an official to attend the office of the Collector on 8-8-1998 with written comments in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
The letter duly informs M.D.A. That compensation for land measuring 38 Kanals, 14 Marlas belonging to the land owner is required to be paid under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to a note appearing on Annexure H, the letter was received in the office of M.D.A. On 7-8-1998. It appears that M.D.A. Did not depute any official to attend the office of Collector on 8-8-1998 and instead addressed a letter, dated 11-8-1998 (Annexure J to Writ petition No,1439 of 1999) to the Deputy Commissioner informing him that some funds were received from the Government of Punjab for project of Multan Bye-pass and that some amount is available in the Government treasury as per award announced by LAC/M.D.A., Multan on 2-10-1980. Thereafter the award was announced on 26-8-1998 (Annexure K to Writ Petition No,1439 of 1999) stating that the same was announced in presence of the Attorney of the land owner and the representative of M.D.A..
14. It will thus be seen that although the notice, dated 6-8-1998 does not specify a period of 15 days yet the fact remains that the M.D.A. Was duly notified of the nature of the proceedings within the meaning of section 9 read with section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the representative was present when the award was announced on 26-8-1998 which was certainly after a period of more than 15 days from 7-8-1998 i,e, the date, the letter, dated 6-8-1998 was received in the office of M.D.A..
15. Learned counsel for M.D.A. Insists that the observation of the LAC in award, dated 26-8-1998 to the effect that the representative of M.D.A. Was present in the proceedings is factually incorrect. He lays much emphasis on the fact that it was towards the end of the award, dated 26-8-1998, infact, last line of the award, which states the presence of representative of M.D.A.. In my opinion the doubt being entertained by learned counsel for M.D.A. Is rather misplaced. I refer here to letter dated 1-10- 1998 (Annexure L to Writ Petition No,1439 of 1999) addressed by Director Estate and Land Management of M.D.A. To the LAC. This letter refers to the award of the LAC and complains that the compensation assessed is on a higher side. There is, however, not even the slightest allegation that M.D.A. Was not notified of the proceedings or that it was not aware of the same or that its representative was not present during the proceedings and the announcement of the award.
Intact, the letter emphasis as that the compensation assessed inasmuch as its in excess of the earlier award, dated 2-10-1980 of Land Acquisition Collector, M.D.A. Is to be paid by the Provincial Government or Federal Government and not by M.n A. Had the notice been not served and M.D.A.
Had not joined the proceedings, the said fact would have certainly found mention in the letter dated 1-10-1998 which was sent to the LAC certainly after the M.D.A. Had perused the award, dated 26-8-1998. I, therefore, find that the M.D.A. Was duly notified of the proceedings/ enquiry to be conducted by the LAC and that its representative joined the proceedings and was present when the award was announced. Resultantly the award, dated 26-8-1998 cannot be said to be violative of the directions of the Supreme Court or provision of section 9(5`) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
16. As to the third question, the LAC has held that it is the M.D.A. For whom the land was acquired and as such is bound to deposit the amount of compensation payable to the land owner. Learned counsel for M.D.A. Submits that the proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but later it was thought to take benefit of the provisions of Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 which provided for a pre-determined amount of compensation at a rate not exceeding Rs,20,000 per Acre. In view of the comments of Supreme Court on this aspect of the matter holding the said exercise to be mala fide, I need not delve into this matter any further. Now the established fact on record is that M.D.A. Was the appellant before the Supreme Court while land owner was contesting the appeal. It was held by the Supreme Court on the basis of agreement between the contestants before it that it will be Notification dated 21-1-1980 that will have to be treated, a Notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for purposes of determining of compensation for the land, owner's land acquired in pursuance thereof. Now this Notification which is available as Annexure F to Writ Petition No,1439 of 1999 declares in an unambiguous term that the land is being acquired as it is needed by M.D.A. And that it is being acquired at its expense. Needless to add that further proceedings culminating in award, dated 16-8-1998 proceeded on the basis of said Notification dated 21-1-1980. The fact that the land was so acquired for the purposes of M.D.A. And that it was M.D.A. Which executed the project after obtaining further funds from the Provincial Government is evident from letter, dated 11-8-1998 of M.D.A. (Annexure J to Writ Petition No,1439 of 1999) as also letter, dated 1-104998 of M.D.A. (Annexure L to Writ Petition No,1439 of 1999). In this state of available evidence on record, it cannot be said that the LAC committed any mistake of law or fact by holding that it is the M.D.A. For whom the land was acquired al d it is the said authority which is to pay for the land. Be that as it may, under the law i,e, the said Act of 1894, it is the Provincial Government who acquires the land and it is the prerogative of the Provincial Government to accept or not to accept the award. In the present case, the Provincial Government has accepted the award and there is nothing on record to indicate to the contrary although the said Government is a party to both the writ petitions and is represented by its learned law officer. The fact remains that the land has been acquired and taken possession by the M.D.A. And the project stands executed. The Land Acquisition Collector has recorded his findings in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court. It is the headache of the Provincial Government, whose agent the LAC is, to ensure the depositing of the compensation amount with the LAC and ultimately with the Court which is admittedly hearing the reference filed by the land owner as she is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the LAC vide the award, dated 26-8-1998.
' In the light of the foregoing, I find that the award, dated 4-10-1998 of LAC, Multan city and the proceedings culminating into the same termed as review proceedings of award, dated 26-8-1998, are void and without lawful authority and consequently are declared as such. At the same time the award dated 26-8-1998 of the same officer is found to be in accordance with law and the judgment of the Supreme Court. Resultantly, Writ Petition No, 11480 of 1998 is allowed while Writ Petition No, 1439 of 1999 is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.