P L D 1965 (W (PLP)

Date of hearing: 14th January 1965. All the claimants have disputed the award made by the Collector of Karachi in the month of May 1958 (no date is mentioned) and have challenged it on both questions of fact and law. Objections raised by them inter alia are that this award made by the Collector of Karachi (Mr. Muzaffar Hussain) does not amount to award in the eyes of law (Land Acquisition Act). No inquiry was held by him under section 11 of this Act, that the compensation awarded by him is inadequate, that provisions of section 4 of Land Control (Capital of the Federation) Ordinance, 1948 (Ordinance XXVI of 1948) will not apply for various reasons, i.e. Karachi is no longer Capital of Pakistan, that the land acquired was not being used for the purpose of federal capital, that this Ordinance does not override the Land Acquisition Act, that the claimants could not be deprived of the rights vested in them under Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation i.e. the value of land not under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but under section 4 of this Ordinance, etc. Main objection raised on behalf of the Government is that all the applications filed by the claimants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are time‑barred and as such this reference should not be considered by this Court. I find very little force in this argument. Section 18 clearly lays down that a person who. is interested in the award and has not accepted it can by application in writing request the Collector to refer the matter to civil Court for determination of his objections in respect of measurement of the land, amount of compensation, and the apportionment of this compensation. Thus the powers of a Court under section 18 are very much limited to these three points referred to above. Court cannot determine the question of limitation after reference is made to it by the Collector under section 18 of the Land. Acquisition Act. Proviso to section 18 is very clear on this point., i.e. period of limitation. Its clause (a) lays down that such application must be made by a person if he was present before the Collector when this award was made "within 6 weeks from the date of the Collector's award". Clause (b) refers to cases in which such persons are absent at the time of the making of that award and in that case he can file application under section 18 within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12 (2) or within 6 months from the date of the Collector's award whichever period shall first expire. This proviso clears the entire ambiguity about the powers of the Court and the Collector regarding the determination of limitation. According to it, it is the Collector who has to determine this question. Even if time‑barred applications are referred to the Court then objection regarding limitation cannot be raised on behalf of the Government. This view is expressed in several decisions. It was held in a case reported in Bashir Ahmad and others v. The Collector, Multan (P L D 1962 Lah, 292) that it is the Collector who has jurisdiction to decide the question whether an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is time‑barred or not. He can refuse to make a reference if he holds that such an application has been made beyond the period of limitation. It was further observed that on perusal of section 20‑21 of this Act together, it is clear that the inquiry by the Court is restricted to a consideration of the objections raised by the interested parties in accordance with subsection (1) of section 18 of this Act. It does not contemplate the decision on the question of limitation because that apparently is a matter for the Collector to decide. Similar view is expressed in a case reported in Sind Industrial Trading Estates Ltd, v. First Assistant Judge, Hyderabad, West Pakistan and 4 others (2) where it was held that question regarding the limitation cannot be agitated before a civil Court once the Collector has made the reference. For all these reasons I find very little substance in this legal objection regarding limitation raised on behalf of the Government and accordingly it is dismissed. I have accepted the objections of the claimants on two short grounds, viz: (I) there has been no inquiry under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and (P L D 1960 Kar, 826) that the award made by the Collector does not amount to award in the eyes of law. There can be no dispute about the sovereign power of a State to acquire land. But two conditions must be satisfied before it can acquire a private property belonging to its citizens, i.e. it is required for the purpose of some public utility and secondly its owner is adequately com pensated. The first condition is based on the well‑known maxim, i.e. "the welfare of the people is paramount law". Under the Land Acquisition Act procedure is laid down for acquisition of land. Similarly it lays down what factors must be taken into consideration for awarding adequate compensation to the owner of the property which is acquired by the State for some public purpose. Under section 4 publication of a preliminary notification notifying the land required for public purpose must be made. Another relevant section for our purpose would be section 9 which enjoins on the Collector to give notice to all persons interested of State's intention to take possession of the land that claims of compensation for all interested in such land may be filed before him at a time and place specifically mentioned in the notice. Another material and relevant section is

11. It enables the Collector to make inquiry into measurements, value and claim and issue a final award. This section, as it is very material for the purpose of this matter, is reproduced below:‑

"On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the inquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurement made under section 8, and into the value of the land (at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub section (I), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming compensation, and shall make an award under his hand of‑ (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 claim, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him." Its perusal shows that it is the statutory duty of a Collector to inquire into the objections by any person interested made in answer to his notice under section

9. He can finish it on the date of hearing so fixed by him "or to any other day to which the inquiry has been adjourned". Principle of natural justice is that no person is to be punished without being given an opportunity to be heard. If we apply this principle of natural justice it would' mean that the person so interested must be present and he should' be given an opportunity to be heard, i.e. to adduce evidence in support of their objections. This inquiry is not summary. I may add here that Collector is not a Court when he holds this inquiry. His proceedings are administrative in nature. Thus it is open to him to take into account all the available information for the purpose of forming true estimate of the compensation to be awarded. Section 11 also refers to three facts in respect of which he has to hold inquiry and then make an award. In this respect he cannot delegate his powers either to perform this inquiry or to make an award. In this particular case there is no evidence on record that any inquiry was held by the Collector. Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khan Exh. 23, Head Clerk working in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi had deposed as follows:‑ "No diary of the proceedings was kept by the Collector and hence it cannot be said if the claimants were present personally or through their representative when this award was made. I see the original of award Exh. 9 and say that it bears the signature of the Collector and is dated May 1958. It does not show the actual date. I produce letter No. LA/394 dated 11th June 1958, Exb.23/13. I produce D. O. addressed to Mr. Masroor Khan, C. S. P. by Mr. Muzaffar Hassan, Deputy Commissioner, on 14‑6‑1958, Exh. 23/14." The last letter clearly recites that his award has been approved by, the Chief Commissioner as per his letter No. F. 3 (74)/55‑Rev. dated 27‑5‑

58. Thus the award before this Court which is objected to by all these claimants and in respect of which reference has been made by the Collector was not the final finding or conclusion arrived at by the Collector. He had submitted this to the Chief Commissioner who had approved of it and thereafter it has been termed as award. It appears that this is the only reason for the omission of the date in his award. I have already pointed out that a Collector cannot delegate his powers in this respect under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act either to hold inquiry or to make an award. In this particular case the award before me is not made by the Collector (Mr. Muzaffar Hassan) but is made by the Chief Commissioner who, under this Act has no powers to do it. Under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, powers of a civil Court are restricted to objections of three kinds raised on behalf of the claimants, viz., measurement of the land, amount of compensation and its apportionment amongst the persons interested. In this particular case no inquiry has been held under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, and secondly the award to which the objections have been filed by the claimants is not an award in the eyes of law. Under these circumstances, when there is no award before me, I cannot consider the objections raised on behalf of the claimants in respect of inadequate compensation. I, therefore, set aside this award under the inherent powers of this Court and remit the case papers to the Collector of Karachi to hold inquiry under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and then make his award after taking into consideration the objections raised on behalf of the claimants before this Court. S.A.H./A.H. Case remanded.