' Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector for the benefit of LDA/WASA on 22-12-1987. The Notification was published in the official Gazette under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3-1-1998.
Subsequent allegedly, the respondents did not proceed in the matter under the provision of Land Acquisition Act and rules framed thereunder for one year. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Notification under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued beyond the period of one year prescribed under rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 without obtaining the extension in time from the Board of Revenue. He further submits that no stay order was granted by this Court. The respondents did not utilize the land in question till date. He further submits that the petitioner did not receive compensation till date.
3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 3-1-1988. The Member of Board of Revenue had granted 60 days' extension in the period, vide Notification dated 2-1-1989. Notification under section 17 was not published on 2-3-1989 as local holiday was declared by competent authority as the Horse and Cattle Show was held in Lahore. 3rd March, 1989 was held being Friday, Notification was issued by the competent authority on 4-3-1989 which was published in the Official Gazette on 7-3-1989. In support of his contention he relied upon Muhammad Afzal Bhatti v. Province of Punjab (1997 SCMR 296). He further submits that Land Acquisition Collector has already declared award of the land in question. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, before the competent authority on 11-8-1994, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the respondents did not issue Notification under section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, the action of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention, he relied upon 2001 CLC 1497 (Rana Muhammad Sharif v. Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and 3 others). He further submits that section 17(iv) does not overright effect of section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act. He further submits that writ petition does not become infructuous as the petitioner had availed alternative remedy by filing of reference against the award, which is an independent right of the petitioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself.
6. It is better and proper to reproduce the facts in grammatical order to resolve the controversy between the parties. The petitioner filed writ petition on 23-11-1991. The award was announced during the pendency of the writ petition by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner filed reference under section 18 before the competent authority on 11-8-1994. It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events as per principle laid down by Single Bench of Karachi in 1990 CLC 1069 (Nisar Jamal v. Zubeida Begum). The competent authority has already announced award qua the land in question and the petitioner had also filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the competent authority on 11-8-1994.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on well-known principle of estopple as per principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool's case (PLD 1971 SC 376).
7. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had already filed reference against the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector before the competent Court for enhancement of the compensation under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is pending adjudication before the competent Court. That by itself would be a sufficient ground for denying any relief in writ jurisdiction to the petitioner in this case. The petitioners have challenged the Notification on the basis of rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. The aforesaid rules 7 and 8 were struck down by this Court in Allah Ditta's case (PLD 1997 Lahore 499). The Full Bench had laid down certain restriction over the respondents in Allah Ditta's case and laid down the following principle:- "To do a thing as soon as possible means to do it within reasonable time, with an understanding to do it within shortest possible time."
' The word "reasonable" was interpreted by this Court in Rana Muhammad Sharif's case (2001 CLC 1497) and observed that reasonable means fair, proper, just, suitable under the circumstances. In the present case, notification of the acquisition of land in question was issued on 22-12-1987 which was published on 3-1-1988 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Member of Board of Revenue extended period of 60 days on 2-1-1989. The Notification under section 17(iv) was published in the official Gazette on 7-3-1989. It is pertinent to mention here that Notification means Notification which was published under proper authority in official Gazette as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgment:- (Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani) PLD 1978 SC 190.
(S. Abul A'la Maudoodi, and others v. Government of West Pakistan) PLD 1964 Karachi 478.
Notification was issued after 3 days prescribed under the law, therefore, it is published within reasonable time and in arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by Rana Muhammad Sharif's case (supra).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.