RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.-- Leave to appeal is sought against the Sindh High Court Judgment dated 3.10.2000 in first Civil Appeal arising out of a judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge, Naushero Feroze in a suit for recovery of compensation amount in respect of lands acquired for public purposes.
2. Respondents being owners of 19.13 acres of land in Taluka and District Naushero Feroze out of 41.25 acres acquired by the petitioner Government for striation of the Public School at Naushero Feroze sued the petitioners for award of compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector Nausheroi Feroze, at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. In the first instance compensation was worked out at Rs. 30,000/- per acre but as the said award was defective and inconclusive for want of notice under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to he land owners, Land Acquisition collector revised the earlier award on 29.6.1993 on the basis of the market value of the land and the rate of compensation awarded to other land owners in the same vicinity for acquisition of lands for construction of another project i.e. Monotech School. It appears that out of thirteen khatedars six land owners i.e. Respondents were not paid the amount of compensation, therefore, they were obliged to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The suit was resisted and after striking out issues both the sides. Adduced evidence. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Petitioners preferred first appeal before the Sindh High Court but without any success, hence his petition.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General made two-fold submissions before this Court. Firstly it was contended that the Land Acquisition Collector was legally not competent to revise the award and that he acted without jurisdiction as no notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the revised award. His next submission was that the suit brought by the respondents was hopelessly time-barred which was wrongly decreed by the Courts below including the High Court.
4. As regards the first contention of rythe learned Additional Advocate General suffice it to say that Assistant Commissioner, Nausheroi Feroze was duly notified as Land Acquisition Collector under the provisions of the Act. In law, he was fully empowered to determine the compensation for acquiring the private lands for public purpose. It is admitted that the petitioner was duly represented before him and necessity to revise the incomplete. Award in terms of section 11 of the.
Act arose when the Land Acquisition Collector noticed that provisions of section 12 of the Act had not been complied with and the award had not been duly notified. We do not subscribe to the view of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Land Acquisition Collector was incompetent to make an award or fix the compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. We say so because the petitioner Government had acquiesced in the award by making payment so fixed to servant land owners without any reservation. In any event, validity of the award was not questioned before any forum under the law..Lt is rather climax of the paradoxical position of the petitioner Government willingly and unhesitatingly paid the amount of compensation to seven khatedars and withheld -the same as regards present' respondents without any legal justification.
5. Adverting to the second submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, we find that this issue was neither raised before the Civil Court nor before- the High Court. Learned Additional Advocate General when confronted with, the position as apparent from the face of record was unable to press this argument any more and rightly so. In any event, Government is not expected to raise such frivolous and hyper technical pleas before this court after having miserably failed in meeting its statutory and legal obligations towards the citizens once private lad of a citizen is acquired for public purpose. It is bounced duty of the agency/the Government to ensure payment of reasonable compensation to the owner of land and not to seek shelter behind technical objections.
6. Resultantly we see no merit in this petition which must fail and is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.