JUDGMENT CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. - I intend-to decide W.P. No. 10646-97 and W.P. No. 10647-97 by one consolidated judgment having similar 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 VIH 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 land owners. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded Award in favour of land owners Muhammad Bashir and Haji Muhammad Akram qua the super-structure 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 petitioners' 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 Rai's case (NLR 1991 Rev. 136); that Land Acquisition Collector was erred in law to grant 15% compulsory charges and 8% compound interest to the land owners under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,, 1894; that Punjab Acquisition of land (Housing Act VIU of 1973) repealed by Act XII of 1985, Punjab Acquisition of Land Housing repealed Act, 1985. The land owners 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Collector was erred in law to announce supplementary Award under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the repealed Act has no retrospective effect, In support of his contention he has relied upon Mst.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 [Vol.XXI L.D.A, through its D.-G. V. Shakil Ahmed Naser Commissioner dismissed the appeal of petitioners without adverting to the record and countersigned the order of the Land Acquisition Collector; that there was no Tube-Well at the spot at the time of Acquisition of the land in question from the land owners as is evident from the entry made by the staff of the petitioners at that time; that private land owners 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 on. 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 respondents fall 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 and published vide gazette dated 24.3.1973. The provisions of the Act was declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble 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 30.11,1985. 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 consequence laid in Section 6, General Clauses Act will follow unless the section itself indicates different intention. This is a case of simple repeal but when the appael 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 land owners on 10.3.1982 with rider that supplementary award qua building and trees, etc. Would be decided later on. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector qua the Tube- Well of respondents on 17.9.1990. In case both the awards are put in juxta position then second award is in continuation of the lst 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 NLR 1991 Rev. 136 (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 Tube-Well, etc. On 17.9.1990, therefore. Land Acquisition Collector was justified to award 15% compulsory charges and compound interest to the land owners 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 (PLD 1963 SC 333) Mst. Mehboob Fatima's case is distinguished on facts and law. It is admitted fact that both the Tribunal 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 sub-section (3) of Section 14 of Punjab Acquisition of Land Housing Act, 1973. It is settled 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:- (1974 SCM R 279) Muhammad Hanif and another's cases (PLD 1981 SC 246) Muhammad Sharif and another's case (PLD 1981 SC 522) Abdul Rehman Bajwa's case This Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its on. 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 Ali's case (PLD .1 973 SC 236).
In view of what has been discussed above, these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.