' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- Upon withdrawal of notification, dated 20-11-1996 issued under section .4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the District Collector, Rahim Yar Khan (respondent No,3) through Office Order, dated 15-6-1998 and consequent withdrawal of notification, dated 25-3-1997 under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, appellants initially filed Writ Petition No,276 of 1999 in this Court. This writ petition was withdrawn by them reserving the right to re-file the same.
Whereafter they filed Constitutional Petition No, 8798 of 2000 praying that:---
(i) respondents be directed to make payment of assessed amount of compensation of Rs,86,08,857 for the acquired land with compound interest;
(ii) withdrawal of notifications, issued under Land Acquisition Act, being mala fide and incompetent, be declared to be without lawful authority.
2. Learned Single Judge of this Court by his order, dated 28-9-2000 dismissed the writ petition. The appellants whereupon have assailed the abovesaid order, dated 28-9-2000 through the present IntraCourt Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated his contentions urged by him in his writ petition and before the learned Single Judge, to contend that the non-payment of compensation for such a long time by the respondents and ultimate withdrawal of Acquisition Notification through order, dated 15-6-1998 was not only mala fide but was also without lawful authority. Main thrust of his arguments was to seek a direction for payment of compensation to the appellants or return of the acquired land by respondents on reversal of the process of acquisition.
' Contrarily, learned A.A.-G. And representatives of respondents Nos.1 to 4 supported the order dated 15-6-1998 for withdrawal of the Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and stated that excessive value was fixed by the Revenue Staff in all the inquiries in connivance with the appellants.
' The learned counsel for Acquiring Department i,e, National Highway Authority (respondent No,5) supported the case .Of the appellants and stated that the possession of the acquired land had been taken over in 1994 though notification thereto was issued/published on 25-3-1997 under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, as the requisite funds, on demand by respondent No,3 were placed in his Land Acquisition Funds in 1996 for payment to appellants. It was further asserted that road was constructed and opened for public use a long time ago.
4. We have attended to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also minutely examined the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and representatives of the respondents.
5. We feel that in order to resolve the litigated questions, it is necessary to recount the facts as disclosed by the examination of record before us.
6. For the construction of additional carriage-way from Ubauro to 20 kms. Beyond Rahimyar Khan District, process of land acquisition was commenced through Notification No, LAC/458, dated 2nd October, 1993 under section' 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by the Collector, Rahim Yar Khan i,e, respondent No,3. The land proposed to be acquired through this Notification also included land measuring 42 Kanals, 18 Marlas in the Revenue Estate of Chak No, 32/N.P., Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan owned by the appellants. Second Notification No, LAC/71 was also made on 26-2-1995 and 3rd Notification on 20-11-1996 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
7. On 2nd December, 1996, the District Collector (respondent No,3) directed Assistant Commissioner, Sadiq Abad (respondent No,4) to submit a report of market value of the said land on the basis of sales betwen 20-11-1995 to 19-11-1996, location, surroundings and other factors relevant thereto. On 5-12-1996, Assistant Commissioner reported average value of the commercial land to be Rs,25,000 per Marla and that of the agricultural land to be Rs,1,54,482 per acre. Deputy Collector, on 12-12-1996, returned report and directed him to personally visit the spot or ask Tehsildar to visit the site and report as to whether 13 Kanals 17, Marlas out of appellant's land was really commercial and does the same value Rs,25,000 per Marla. On 27-1-1997, respondent No,4 sent his report to respondent Collector reaffirming the commercial nature of 1 acre, 5 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land and value .Of Rs,25,000 per Marla for the said land. Respondent No,3, thereupon sought approval of Board of Revenue (respondent No,2) through Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur vide Memo. Dated 19-2-1997 for the following estimated market value of the said land:-
1. Cost of land measuring 1 acre, 5 Kanals, 17 Marlas at Rs.25,000 per Marla.Rs.69,25,000.00
2. Cost of land measuring 3 acres, 5 Kanals, 1, Marla at Rs.1,54,482 per acre.Rs.5,60,962.75
3. 15% compulsory charges. Rs.11,22,894.30 Total Rs.86,08,857.05
8. It was reported that after publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 20-11-1996, the said land has been assessed as above on the basis of "the average price/market price based on sale transaction of Chak No,32/NP during the period of 12 months preceding the date of Notification the statement of mutations sanctioned and report of Assistant Commissioner, Sadiq Abad is enclosed".
' In the meanwhile, Acquiring Department, i,e, National Highway Authority (respondent No,5) was advised by respondent No,3 to deposit the abovesaid compensation and acquisition charges for the said land amounting to Rs,86,08,857.05. By 17-4-1996, National Highway Authority through two challan forms, deposited a sum of Rs,1 crore for acquisition of the said land.
9. The case record shows that after publication of the first Notification on 1-10-1993, the Acquiring Department had taken over possession of the said land on 8-6-1994 through handing over/taking over proceedings signed by six officers including Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway Authority, 'Bahawalpur, which was endorsed by L.A.C. N.H.A. Ubauro. However, on 19-2-1997, respondent No,3 sought approval of the Commissioner for issuance of a Notification under section 17(4) and section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in view of genuine urgency of the Acquiring Department for taking over possession of the said land and for final declaration of acquisition of the said land, as the Acquiring Department had paid the estimated cost of the land amounting to Rs,86,08,857.05. The said permission was granted and the Notification was published in the Punjab Gazette vide Notification No,ACQ-2-938/828 on 20-3-1997 to the following effect: "Whereas it appears to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur that the land notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Collector, Rahimyar Khan vide notification under section 4 bearing No, LAC/352, dated 15-9-1996 published in the Government Gazette on 20- 11-1996. The land required to be taken by the Government for National Highway Authority at its expenses for a public purpose namely for the construction of Additional Carriageway Ubaro to 20 K.M. Beyond Rahimyar Khan Section of N-5.
' And whereas the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur is satisfied that the land specified below is urgently required and the provision of subsection (1) of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are applicable to aforesaid land.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power under subsection (4) of section 17 of the said Act, the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur is further pleased to direct the provision of sections 5 and 5-A of the said Act, shall not be applicable in the case of said land and that the Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway Authority should take action accordingly.
' A declaration is also made under the provision of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to all whom it may concern and under provision of section 7 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway Authority is hereby directed to take order for acquisition of land."
' In view of the above Notification, the making of prior award regarding compensation for payment to the appellants under sections 5 and 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, was dispensed with.
10. On the same date i,e, 20-3-1997, Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur sought sanction of the Board of Revenue to the estimated land cost of Rs,86,08,857.05. Secretary (Settlement), Board of Revenue, in reply, sought "a rationale for proposing such exorbitant rate".
Commissioner, Bahawalpur in terms sought rationale from the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan, who referred the matter back to Assistant Commissioner, Sadiqabad. Through the conduit of Patwari, Qanungo, Girdawar, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar gave detailed report to Assistant Commissioner, who sent the same to Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan on 22-8- 1997. Respondent No,3 thus, on 27-8-1997 reported back to the Commissioner as under: "On the site inspection made by the Tehsildar under the instructions of this office it was found that 1 Acre, 5 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land under acquisition was to be classified as commercial area on the basis of a milk plant namely Sheer Pak Factory in Killa Nos.6, 7, 13, 14 and 15 and on the other side of the road where a Gatta Factory is being constructed in Killa Nos.4 and 5. Copy of the site inspection report of the Tehsildar endorsed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sadiqabad alongwith Photostat of the site plan is attached herewith. The perusal of the site plan would indicate that land in question falls partly in the commercial area.
' In order to double-check the accuracy of the estimated cost, average sale price of the land has been got prepared of the adjoining village namely VALANA, Tehsil Sadiqabad. It has been reported that average sale price of the commercial area/site comes to Rs,20,000 per Marla and market price as Rs,25,000 per Marla. A copy of the report of Tehsildar endorsed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sadiqabad is attached.
' The above facts are sufficient to justify the proposal of estimated cost earlier submitted vide this office No,LAC/71, dated 19-2-1997."
11. All through the abovesaid period from the date of first Notification in 1993, the appellants had, through number of communications, applications and letters to the relevant authorities, continuously requested for payment of compensation. On 28-2-1998, appellant No,2 got his statement recorded before the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan for payment of the above assessed compensation or for return of their land.
12. On 2-4-1998, respondent No,3, through Office Memo. No,LAC/176 terming the whole process of.
Evaluation of the acquisition as fraudulent and collusive asked the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division for withdrawal of notifications issued under section 4 and section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and also directed respondent No,4 i,e, Assistant Commissioner, Sadiqabad to conduct an inquiry in over assessment of the land. On 15-6-1998, Commissioner accorded permission for withdrawal of the said notifications.
13. Ultimately through Memo. No,LAC/260, dated 22-7-1998 respondent No,3 passed an order of withdrawal of Acquisition Notification in the following words:--- "As permission accorded by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division vide Letter No,ACQ/RYK/2-938, dated 15-6-1998 and in view of the circumstances explained in this Office Memo. No,LAC/176, dated 2-4-1998 addressed to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, the Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued vide this Office No,LAC/353, dated 15-9-1996 is hereby withdrawn. (Underlining is ours)."
14. It appears that on 31-10-1998, F.I.R. No,107 of 1998 was registered under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against number of employees of the Revenue Department at the instance of Assistant Director (Enquiries) Anti- Corruption Department, Punjab, Lahore upon Collector's Letter No,LAC/271, dated 24-7-1998.
Similarly, departmental proceedings were proposed to be initiated against the said Officers but the record produced before us indicates that till end of 1999 the proposed charge-sheet was only at the draft stage. However, a report, dated 7-8-2001 from Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Department has been presented before us by the appellants. The correctness of this report has not been denied or challenged by the respondents. This report is titled as `final report' of investigation held pursuant to above said F.I.R., dated 31-10-1998. This report categorically exonerates all the accused officers and employees of the Revenue and Land Acquisition Department. The conclusion recorded therein strongly supports the assessment of acquired land at Rs,25,000 per Marla for commercial land as the market price thereof is stated to be Rs,40,000 per Marla. It is also recorded therein that the appellants neither manoeuvred nor fraudulently obtained excessive assessment of the said land at Rs,25,000 per Marla because the land is importantly located at commercial and industrial site. And that the appellants have unjustly been subjected to unfair loss through nonpayment for a long time. The Investigating Officer of Anti-Corruption Department also recommended dropping of proceedings against the accused officers.
15. On 3-1-2000 respondent No,5 i,e, National Highway Authority addressed the following letter to respondents Nos.1 to 4:--- "The undersigned is directed to state that land of the above named owners measuring 1 acre, 5 Kanals and 17 Marlas was acquired for the construction of additional carriageway project (Ubaro Rahim Yar Khan Project) and such notifications under sections 4(1), 17(4) and 6 (ibid) were issued on 27-10-1993 and 25-3-1997 by the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan and possession was delivered to the N.H.A. On 8-6-1994. Later on compensation of the acquired land being commercial was assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan at Rs,25,000 per Marla, but Board of Revenue did not approve it. Thereafter, the said notifications under sections 4(1), 17(4) and 6 ibid, have been withdrawn by L.A.C. Under the orders of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur on the ground that the compensation of the said acquired land was not finally approved by the Board of Revenue. Although, under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government can only withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken, but the damages would be payable under sections 23 and 24 ibid to the owners in consequence of proceedings and prosecution, if held. Since, the land in question was acquired in legal manner and possession was taken over and land has been utilized by the NHA, as such, notifications under sections 4 and 17(4) and 6 (ibid), as issued by the L.A.C. Rahimyar Khan, on 27- 10-1993 and 21-3-1997 respectively could not be withdrawn and its withdrawal was offensive to principle of locus poenitentiae and not warranted in circumstances.
' It is, therefore, requested that to kindly announce the award under section 11 (ibid), as per fair market price and make the payment to the abovesaid landowners accordingly under intimation to this office, as the N.H.A. Had placed the funds at their disposal since long time." (Underlining is ours).
' In report and parawise comments filed by respondents Nos.1 to 4 to the abovesaid writ petition, it was contended that withdrawal of acquisition notifications was due to excessive evaluation of the land allegedly obtained by the appellants in connivance with the officials of the Revenue Department.
16. Contrarily, respondent No,5, NHA pleaded that proceedings of acquisition stand completed, possession handed over, road constructed and in public use since long and the compensation thereto was also deposited by NHA, wherefor, de-notification or de-requisitioning of the land was without lawful authority.
17. We have carefully and painstakingly stated every relevant event, incident and proceedings in chronological order with an object to delineate the position naturally emerging from the case record which on recapitulation highlights the following facts:-- ' The process of acquisition of land started on 2-10-1993.
' Three notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued respectively on 2-10- 1993, 26-5-1995 and 20-11-1996.
' Possession of the land was taken over by the acquiring department on 8-6-1994.
' Respondent No,3 directed N.H.A. To deposit Rs,86,08,857.05 as compensation etc. For land. This amount was deposited by N.H,A. By 17-4-1996.
' On 5-12-1996, respondent No,4 reported the average value of commercial land to be Rs,25,000 per Marla and of agricultural' land to be Rs,1,54,482 per acre.
' Respondent No,3 directed re-inquiry in which respondent No,4 re-affirmed the above value on 27- 1-1997.
' Respondent No,3 submitted estimated market value alongwith 15% compulsory charges amounting to Rs,86,08,857.05 for approval of respondent No,2 through Commissioner.
' On 20-3-1997, notification under section 17(4) and section 6 of Land Acquisition Act for taking over possession and acquisition of land was issued.
' Respondent No,2 sought rationale for the above-referred assessed compensation.
' On 27-8-1997, respondent No,3 re-affirmed the above evaluation and submitted basis thereto.
' On 28-2-1998, the appellants upon non-payment requested for return of their land.
' On 22-7-1998, above notifications for land acquisition were withdrawn by order of respondent No,3.
' On 31-10-1998 F.I.R. Was registered under P.P.C. And P.C.A. Against Revenue Department employees for exhorbitant and excessive assessment.
' On 7-8-2001 Anti-Corruption Circle Officer exonerated the accused employees and supported the above-assessed compensation through his investigation and inquiry. < ' From 1993 till date appellants have not been paid compensation. Road constructed in 1996-97 and put to public use.
18. An inescapable conclusion prominently flows from above-narrated facts i,e, process of acquisition of land commencing in 1993 was completed on 20-3-1997 upon issuance and publication of notification under section 17(4) read with section 6 of Land Acquisition Act except for announcement of award under section 11 (ibid) and payment of compensation to the appellants.
19. Armed with notification, dated 2-10-1993 acquiring department on 8-6-1994 took over physical possession of the said land through handing over and taking over proceedings. This could not have been done without information and blessings of respondents Nos.1 to 4, who, however, endorsed and affirmed the said possession by making and publishing Notification No,ACQ-2-938/828 on 20- 3-1997 under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereby sealed the complete acquisition of land. Whereupon the alleged distinction, if any, between "the taking over" or "the handing over/receiving of the possession" from the appellants obliterated and the land came to vest absolutely in the Government by effect of subsection (1) of section 17 of Land Acquisition Act which reads as under: "17. Special powers in cases of urgency.--- (1) In case of urgency, whenever the Provincial Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9, subsection (1), take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes or for a Company. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances."
'It is thus, obvious that respondents Nos.1 to 4 on issuance of notification under above-quoted section 17(4) (ibid) technically acquired the legal possession of the said land, though, the physical possession thereof was taken over by the acquired department on 8-6-1994. Another statutory effect of the above-quoted provision of law was that even without making and filing of award qua the compensation to appellants, the land came to vest absolutely in the Government free from all burdens and encumbrances. Acquisition thereof thus became irreversible for all the parties.
Respondents became the owners in possession of the said land upon which additional carriageway/road had been built and, opened for public use and continues to be so utilized by the general public. In view thereof respondents Nos.1 to 4 had no authority, power or justification to withdraw the abovesaid notifications through impugned Memo. No,LAC/260, dated 22-7-1998 passed by respondent No,3 for any reason whatsoever.
20. Respondents' authority and jurisdiction to recede from acquisition came to an end on issuance of above said notification under section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act. Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 incorporating the above rule re-affirms as under:--- "48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory but compensation to be awarded when not completed.--- (1) Except in the case provided for in section 36 the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. (2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damages suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land. (3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section."
'Statutory intendment enacted in the above reproduced section is only a logical extension of the principles incorporated in sections 16 and 17 of Land Acquisition Act that upon taking over possession of the land, the same shall stand acquired forever to vest in the Government absolutely.
' Under section 48 (ibid) Government's liberty and discretion to withdraw from the acquisition of land terminates upon taking over its possession. As such impugned order of withdrawal was patently without jurisdiction and lawful authority.
21. House of Lords in the case of Attorney-General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd. 1920 AC 508 held that the owners of hotel acquired under Defence of Realm Regulations were not entitled to rent for use and occupation of the premises but proceeded to pronounce that: "Crown had no power to take possession of the hotel in right of its prerogative simpliciter without payment of compensation and that the suppliants were entitled to compensation claimed by them." ....
"There could henceforward be no doubt that the Crown possessed the powers formulated in the regulations, and this was the object of the legislation. But when the Crown elects to act under the authority of statute, it, like any other person, must take the powers that it thus uses cum onere (sic).
It cannot take the powers without fulfilling the condition that the State imposes on the use of such powers."
' In the case of M.S. Sheshargiri Rao and another v. The Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer, AIR 1965 Mysore 222 (v 52 C 47) a Division Bench of Mysore High Court relying upon above case held that:-- "Once the Land Acquisition Officer obtained delivery of possession of the property under the Act as he did in this case, it was after that stage not permissible for the Government even to withdraw from the acquisition, as can be seen from the provisions of section 48 of the Act. The power of the Government, once there was taking of possession under the provisions of the Act, to withdraw from the acquisition and to enforce the conditions of the grant came to an end and it became incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Officer to complete the acquisition according to the provisions of the Act."
' Similarly, this Court in the case of National Police Foundation Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v.
Board of Revenue, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1984 Lah. 191 held that:--- "The Board of Revenue does not figure anywhere in the land acquisition proceedings. There is no cavil with .The proposition that under section 48 of the Act except in the cases provided in section 36 thereof, Government alone is at liberty to withdraw from acquisition proceedings of any land of which possession has not been taken and the Board of Revenue is not the Government."
' In the case of Janana-D-Maloocho Textile Mills v. Commissioner, Peshawar Division NLR 1986 SCJ 42, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan interpreting powers of the Government to withdraw from acquisition held that:--- "Section 48 clearly indicates that the Government can withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. Unless and until a notification under section 6 has been issued and possession under section 16 or 17(1) of the Act taken, the property does not vest in the petitioner."
22. We have no hesitation in holding that impugned order, dated 22-7-1998 of respondent No,3 was not only passed in contravention of the express provisions of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act but it also suffered from mala fides. As is evident from the facts given hereinabove, 13 Kanals and 17 Marlas of appellants' land was determined in three inquiries to be commercial bearing value of Rs,25,000 per Marla. The total estimated value of the land including the noncommercial land and 15% compulsory charges was determined at Rs,86,08,857.05. Since the above figure was a tall figure, therefore, it appeared to be high and the Collector as well as Commissioner held and re- held various inquiries and finally recommended the same for approval of B.O.R./respondent No,2, who again remitted it back to provide the rationale thereto. On 27-8-1997 respondent No,3 again provided the basis thereto on third inquiry and recommended the above value. The Commissioner again sent it for approval to the B.O.R. The compensation so assessed does not seem to have met the favour and approval of the then high-ups. Wherefor, they instructed initiation of inquiry against the Assessing Officers and also became instrumental in withdrawal of the acquisition notifications through respondent No,3's order, dated 22-7-1998. In the said order reference was made to a report dated 2-4-1998 which seems to have been compiled upon presumptions different from the earlier reports and stating that since the evaluated price appears to have been excessive and menoeuvred, therefore, the notifications of acquisition be withdrawn.
23. After taking over the possession and vesting of the said land in the Government, respondents Nos.1 to 4 had no authority in law or otherwise to recede from acquisition. Appellants had been deprived of their land through a confiscatory legislation. They also had to suffer the ignominy and indignity of being subjected to financial losses, harassment, allegations, investigations, re-inquiries and non-payment of compensation from 1993 till date.
'As stated above, the road was completed and put to public use in 1996-97. The assessed compensation was deposited by respondent No,5 i,e, ' Acquiring Department in 1996 upon demand of respondent No,3, where after no reason or ground existed to withdraw the acquisition notifications for any reason whatsoever. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mr. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi etc. v. Ahbab Cooperative Housing 'Society Ltd., Lahore etc. NLR 1979 Revenue SC 210 and this Court in the same case i,e, Ahbab Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Lahore etc. v.
Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 61 others PLD 1978 Lah. 273 struck down withdrawal order of acquisition for being mala fide for the reason that the same was not for the benefit of Government. In the present case, Government having taken over possession absolutely acquired the land. The road was also completed. Receding from acquisition, as was done, cannot by any stretch, be held to be in benefit of the Government.
24. In view thereof, the impugned order of withdrawal is patently mala fide as well, and therefore, unsustainable.
25. Having declared the impugned order dated 22-7-1998 as mala fide and without lawful authority, we are of the opinion that the respondents are under statutory duty to finalise the last stage of H acquisition by announcing the award in terms of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act without any further delay.
26. In the referred case of AIR 1965 Mysore 222 (Vol. 52 C 47), noted supra, it was also held that:--- "It seems to me that once a proceeding is commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, every step enjoined by that Act must be taken and every relevant statutory provision contained in that Act must be obeyed, and that if an acquisition proceeding was started,, it was incumbent on the Acquisition Officer conducting the acquisition to determine the compensation payable and that compensation should be determined in manner specified in section 15 and should be paid. If the claimant is dissatisfied with the determination of the compensation, he has a right to ask for a reference to the Court under section 18 and the Court is under a duty to determine the compensation by the employment of the process specified in section 23."
27. A Division Bench of Patna High Court issued a writ of mandamus in the case of Pannalal Maheshwari v. State of Bihar and others, reported as AIR 1955 Patna 63 (Vol.42, C.N.5) holding that:- -- "the Collector is under the statutory duty to make an inquiry into the valuation of the land and into the respective interest of the persons claiming compensation and to make an award in respect of the matters mentioned in section 11. Section 12 imposes a further duty upon the Land Acquisition Officer to file the award in the Collector's Office to give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. It is clear to us in the present case that the Land Acquisition Officer has failed in performance of the duties cast by the Acquisition Act.
For these reasons we hold that a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution commanding the Collector of Gaya to perform the statutory duty imposed upon him under sections 11 and 12, Land Acquisition Act, and to bring the land acquisition proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible."
Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the recent case of Messrs Mehraj Flour Mill and another and Khizar Hayat Khan v. The Provincial Government and others 2001 SCMR 1806 pronounced the law as under:--- <"It is noted that no time has been fixed in between preliminary notification under section 4 and second notification under section 5, therefore, this expression assumes pivotal role for interpretation of section 5 which leaves the limitation period to be determined in each case on its own merits. Although the expression 'at any time' cannot be taken to mean a year or otherwise, but certainly can be interpreted to mean within a reasonable time, which of course would be determined in each case looking to its own circumstances."
28. In the present case despite holding number of inquiries, no award has been made by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in terms of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents have, thus, failed to perform their duty under the law.
29. In view of the above, this appeal is accepted. Order dated 29-9-2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside. Impugned order, dated 22-7-1998 passed by the respondent No,3 and omission of respondents to make the award, are held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Respondent No,3 is directed to make and file an award under sections 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of 90 days without fail. The appellants are directed to appear before respondent No,3 on 1st November, 2001. The parties are left to bear their own costs.