2004 PLP 760 (CLD)

‑‑‑‑Ss.6(8) & 9‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.62‑‑‑Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss.4, 11 & 16‑‑‑Sale in execution of decree‑‑‑Bank (decree‑holder) claimed that suit‑land was mortgaged with Bank on 12‑12‑1990 by judgment‑debtor, who was holding the same on basis of sale‑deed dated 29‑5‑1990‑‑‑Appellant‑Local Development Authority filed objection petition claiming to have acquired such land in year 1970 under Land Acquisition Act. 1894‑‑ Banking Tribunal dismissed objection petition ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ According to record, Notification of acquisition of such land was issued on 16‑2‑1968, and its award was issued and possession was taken over by Government in 1970‑‑‑Such land, thus, stood acquired and had vested in Government since the time its possession was taken over ‑‑‑Non incorporation of relevant entry in Revenue Record would not divest the Authority of its ownership‑‑‑No objection certificate, dated 4‑9‑1990 issued by Land Acquisition Collector stating that as per his record, such land had not been acquired, was of no avail, as he had no authority in law to issue any such certificate‑‑‑High Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned order and deleted such land from "fard taleeka" filed by Bank. Nemo for Appellant. Shamas Mehmood Mirza and Syed Mumtaz Hussain for Applicant/ Assignee. Date of hearing: 17th March, 2003 MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.‑‑‑‑Respondent‑Bank brought a suit for recovery against respondents Nos.2 to 8, which was decreed on 4‑7‑1993; in the suit, the claim of the Bank was that the land in dispute had been mortgaged by the respondent No.2 in its favour on 12‑12‑1990, through execution of memorandum of the deposit of title deed i.e. sale‑deed dated 29‑5‑1990, in the name of said respondent. In the execution proceedings, the property in question was attached and also put to auction, but before the sale could be finalized, the L.D.A. filed objections stating that the land in question, had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1971 for the L.D.A.; this application has been rejected by the learned Banking Court vide impugned order dated 20‑3‑1996, holding that as the incorporation of the acquisition has not been made in the Revenue Record and that the respondent No.2, was the title holder of the suit property on account of sale‑deed dated 29‑5‑1990, resultantly, the land did not vest in the L.D.A.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that as per the admitted position on the record, the land in question had been validly acquired, as the relevant notifications under the said Acquisition Act, were issued on 16‑2‑1968 and the possession was also taken over by the Government in 1970. According to the provisions of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, when the award has been announced, the Collector may take over the possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government. In the present case, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show if the Award No. 1809 dated 16‑11‑1970, has not been I announced under section 11 and possession was never taken over by the Government, resultantly, in view of the above legal position, the land had been absolutely vested in the Government‑ since the time of its acquisition, therefore, notwithstanding that the relevant incorporation was not made in the Revenue Record; it would not divest the ownership of the L.D.A. Moreover, any N.O.C. issued by the Land Acquisition Collector dated 4‑9‑1990, stating that as per his record, land had not been acquired, is of no avail, because he has no authority in law to issue any such certificate, when as per procedure provided .in the Land Acquisition Act, the land stood acquired and had vested in the Government, since the time the possession was taken over, therefore, the impugned order is set aside; the objection petition is allowed and the property in question is detached and deleted from the "fard taleeka" filed by the respondent/ Bank. S.A.K./L‑61/L Appeal allowed.