' Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that the Land Acquisition Collector, Kasur respondent No,4 acquired the petitioners' land measuring 187 Kanals, 8 Marlas situated in Mauza Kasur Androon (inside) vide notification dated 13-12-1980 for the purposes of construction of a Technical Training Centre for the Labour Department, Government of the Punjab. The notification included the petitioners' land as well as land of some other persons. The case was treated to be one of emergency. Therefore, provisions of sections 5, 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were dispensed with by invoking the provisions of subsection (4) of section 17 of the Act. The possession of the land was taken order by the acquiring department on 16-5-1981 and the Technical Training Centre was constructed in due course of time.
2. The estimated cost of the land was proposed at the rate of Rs,102.93 per Marla by treating it as agricultural land although it was situated inside Kasur City. However, the Board of Revenue and the Revenue Department, Government of the Punjab after thorough inquiry increased the estimated cost of the land to Rs,1,016 per Marla. Later on a representation made by the acquiring department the price was again reduced by the Member, Board of Revenue to Rs,102.93 per Marla. The petitioners separately challenged the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue reducing the cost of the land to Rs,102.93 per Marla through Writ Petition No,14182 of 1994 which was accepted vide judgment dated 23-5-2002. In the said petition the petitioner had also filed a miscellaneous application (C.M.568 of 1996) to obtain a stay order against the announcement of award by the tand Acquisition Collector. The application came for hearing on 7-3-1996 and it was ordered that the award if any announced during the pendency of the petition would be subjected to the decision of the main writ petition. Thereafter, the award was announced by the Collector on 24-3- 1998 (a copy of which had been annexed to the petition as Annex 'A'). Legality of the award has been assailed in the present petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate- General at some length and perused the material on the record. Award suffers from material and substantial legal defects making it a nullity in the eye of law. It is stated in para.6 of the award that notices under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued to the interested landowners and the acquiring department vide Office No,AC-97/1301 dated 25-10-1997. However, there is absolutely, no material to show that notices were actually served on the petitioners or the other landowners. It is really strange that the acquisition proceedings had started with publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 13-12-1980, possession of the land was taken over on 16-5- 1981 and for the first time, notices to the landowners were issued on 25-10-1997 after the lapse of about 17 years. Section 9 of the Act contemplates two notices one which is a general public notice to be given in the locality intimating the fact-um of the proposed acquisition and inviting claims for compensation from all interested persons. The other is a special or personal notice to be served on the occupants and on all other interested persons for the same object. The award does not make it clear whether the notice referred to in para. 6 of the award is merely a general notice or a special notice. It is settled law that notices under section 9 are essential to exercise of the Collector's jurisdiction in order to give validity to the proceedings for acquisition of land and finality to the award. This essential requirement must be strictly complied with as held in the case of "Maharaja Rameswa r Singh v. Secretary of State" (ILR 34 Cal. 470). The same view was expressed in a recent judgment reported as Muhammad Shafi through Legal Heirs v. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Multan and 4 others" (2000 M LD 631) in which it was held as under:-- "As a matter of fact, when we speak of a notice, it means a proper notice with proper endorsement and having copies available on record. The Acquiring Authority cannot do away with these mandatory provisions and by simply stating that there being a general notice to some of the interested persons, the presumption would be notices to all. The valuable and vested rights of citizens are too sacred to be taken away through circumvention of a prescribed procedure in this connection. "
' In the present case, the petitioners firmly asserted in para. 2 of the writ petition as under:-- "Notices and declaration as postulated by sections 5, 5-A, 6 and 9 were not issued."
' They also asserted that presence of one Ch. Shahbaz Ali Bhatti, Advocate was shown on behalf of landowners/interested persons but he was never engaged by the petitioners on their behalf. They further stated that on inquiry the said learned Advocate informed the petitioners that he never made any statement before the Land Acquisition Collector as he was never engaged on behalf of the landowners. The petitioners have also placed on the record the sworn affidavit of Ch. Shahbaz Ali Bhatti, Advocate as Annex. 'B'. He stated therein, "The deponent is an Advocate of High Court. The statement purported to have been made before the L.A.C., Kasur during the course of making of the award by the deponent is false and fictitious. The deponent never appeared before the Collector nor did he make any statement before him". These facts remained un-controverted because the respondents did not file any' written statement although the petition was admitted for regular hearing on 3-10-1998 and respondent No,4 was present in the Court and had accepted notice. In the absence of any written statement on behalf of the respondents, the facts stated in the petition are presumed to be correct. Therefore, it is established that the general as well as the special notice contemplated under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were never issued and served on the petitioners/landowners/interested persons. The proceedings taken in their absence were violative of the principle of natural justice "audi alteram partem" (no one should be condemned unheard), hence on this ground alone the impugned award is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Moreover, if section 9 of the Act is not complied with, as in the present case, then the Collector cannot proceed to conduct inquiry into the objections/claims of the interested persons under section 11 of the Act.
4. The award announced by the Collector must contain the following:-
(i) The true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.
' Admittedly, list showing apportionment of the compensation among the land owners/interested persons was never included in the award. It was subsequently prepared after announcement of the award. In this connection, the Collector who appeared before the Court on 1-10-1998 tried to fall back upon the provisions of section 12 of the Act, which merely related to accidental, clerical or arithmetical errors/omissions and have no relevancy to the material or substantial defect in the award. Therefore, subsequent preparation of lists of the landowners/interested persons for apportionment of compensation is clearly in-consequential being beyond the scope of the provisions of section 12 of the Act. As regards the determination of the compensation of the land, the Collector has accepted the estimated cost determined by the Tehsildar without independently applying his mind to the facts of the case. Moreover, after acceptance of the connected writ petitions now the cost of land determined by the Revenue Department, Government of the Punjab at the rate of Rs,1,016 per Marla has to be made a basis for assessing compensation.
5. For the foregoing discussion, the petition is accepted and the impugned award dated 24-3-1998 is declared to the without lawful authority and of no legal effect.