I intend to decide Writ Petition No. 10646 of 1997 and Writ Petition No. 10647 of 1997 by one consolidated judgment having similar questions of facts and law.
2. Briefly, the facts of cases are that the petitioners acquired the land from Muhammad Bashir and Haji Muhammad Akram under the provisions of Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing Act VIII of 1973). The Land Acquisition Collector awarded award under the aforesaid Act qua the land acquired by the petitioners on 10-3-1982 and did not announce any award qua the superstructure of the landowners. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Award in favour of landowners Muhammad Bashir and Haji Muhammad Akram qua the superstructure on 7-4-1990. The petitioners being aggrieved filed two appeals before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide two orders, dated 30-11-1996; hence the present writ petitions.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that Land Acquisition Collector has no authority under the law to award supplementary Award. In support of his contentions he relied upon Muhammad Zafar R.I's case PLD 1991 Lah. 337; that Land Acquisition Collector had erred in law to grant 15 % compulsory charges and 8 % compound interest to the landowners under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; that Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing Act VIII of 1973) repealed by Act XII of 1985, Punjab Acquisition of Land Housing Repealed Act, 1985. The landowners without filing any application before the Land Acquisition Collector got the Award from the Land Acquisition Collector; that proceedings under the provisions of Punjab-Acquisition Housing Act, 1973, the Land Acquisition Collector was erred inlaw to announce supplementary Award under the provisions of Land-Acquisition Act, 1894 as the Repealed Act has no retrospective effect. In support of his- contention he has relied upon Mst. Mehboob Fatima's case PLD 1963 SC 333; that learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal of petitioners without adverting to the record and countersigned the order of the Land Acquisition Collector; that there was no tubewell at the spot at the time of acquisition of the land in question from the landowners as is evident from the entry made by the staff of the petitioners at that time; that private landowners have taken away all the articles as is evident from the Annexures attached with the writ petition. The learned Commissioner did not advert to these documents and decided the appeals of petitioners without applying its independent mind.
4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that learned Commissioner has passed the order after applying its independent mind as is evident from para. 4 of the impugned orders of the learned Commissioner; that both the Tribunal below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of Tribunal below; that Land Acquisition Collector did not announce supplementary Award as is evident from the original Award, dated 10-3-1982; that supplementary award was announced subsequently, therefore, the judgments cited by the petitioners' counsel are distinguished on facts and law; that question of retrospective effect does not arise in this case as the case of respondent falls under proviso 1 of section 3 of Punjab Land Acquisition of Land Housing Repealed Act, 1985.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce legislative history of Punjab Acquisition of Land Act, 1973. The Housing Act was framed by the competent body under the provisions of Constitution arid published vide Gazette, dated 24-3-1973. The provisions of the Act were declared ultra vires by the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Muhammad Khurshid Abbas Girdezi's case PLD 1983 SC 151. Thereafter, competent body under the provisions of Constitution repealed the aforesaid Act vide Act No. 12 of 1985 (Punjab Acquisition of Land Housing Repealed Act, 1985) which was published vide Notification dated 30-11-985. It is better and appropriate to reproduce section 3 to resolve the present controversy between the parties:-- "3. Continuation of acquisition proceedings and assessment etc. Of compensation.--- Where in a case proceedings have commenced under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 or under its provisions as, incorporated or referred to in any other law, rule or instrument, for the time being in force, the same shall continue and shall be completed under the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that where in a case an award has not been made under section 7 of the said Act at the time of commencement of this Act, the compensation in such a case shall be assessed, awarded and paid under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894): Provided further that in a case in which an award has been made before the commencement of this Act under the Punjab Land (Housing) Act, 1973, but the payment of compensation shall become due for immediate payment in cash on the commencement of this Act unless the owner whose land has been acquired chooses to adjust the same towards the cost of any developed site which may have been given to him as part of compensation."
It appears that taking into consideration the harsh feature in Act 8 of 1973, the Legislature passed the Repealing Act, 1985 in order to erase from the statute book. The stringent provisions relating to payment of compensation in compulsory acquisition of land of citizens of State by the Province of Punjab. It is also settled principle of interpretation of statute, "whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid in section 6, Genera! Clauses Act will follow unless the section itself indicates different intentions. This is a case of simple repeal but when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the same subject it is necessary not only to look into the provisions of repealed Act but also the provisions of repealing Act. It is admitted fact that earlier award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector qua the land of landowners on .10-3-1982 with remarks that supplementary award qua building and trees etc. Would be decided later on. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector qua the tubewell of respondents on 17-9- 1990. In case both the awards are put in juxtaposition then second award is in continuation of the 1st award, therefore, contention of petitioners' counsel that Land Acquisition Collector had no authority to announce supplementary award has no force. The judgment cited by the petitioner's counsel PLD 1991 Lah. 337 (supra) is distinguished on facts and law. It is also admitted fact that no award was announced qua the trees and buildings by the Land Acquisition Collector till the repeal of Act, 1973. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector qua the tubewell etc. On 17-9-1990, therefore, Land Acquisition Collector was justified to award 15% compulsory charges and compound interest to the landowners by virtue of proviso 1 of section 3 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land Housing Repealed Act, 1985. The question of retrospective effect is not attracted in the present case in view of proviso 1 of the aforesaid section 3 of repealed Act, therefore, judgment cited by petitioners' counsel Mst. Mehboob Fatima's case PLD 1963 SC 333 is distinguished on facts and law.
It is admitted fact that both the Tribunals below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners. The petitioners filed appeal before Commissioner and the order of Commissioner is final between the parties by virtue of subsection (3) of section 14 of Punjab Acquisition of Land Housing Act, 1973. It is settle/proposition of law that writ petition is not maintainable against the concurrent findings of fact given by Tribunal below. I am fortified by the following judgments: -- Muhammad Hanif and another's case 1974 SCMR 279, Muhammad Sharif and another's case PLD 1981 SC 246, and Abdul Rehman Bajwa's case PLD 1981 SC 522.
This Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of the finding of Tribunal below as is held by Division Bench of this Court in Mussadaq's case PLD 1973 Lah. 600. The substantial justice has been done. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of petitioners as the law laid down in Nawab Ronaq A.I's case PLD 1973 SC 236.