1986 PLP 530 (CLC)

2. It is stated that during the pendency of the reference there was a compromise between the parties and the WAPDA agreed to restore the land in question to the respondents but no final order was passed in this behalf. The respondents withdrew the reference as according to them an undertaking had been given to them that the land in question would be restored to them but subsequently the petitioner did not honour the commitment and were again bent upon taking possession of the land in question. Hence the suit. The petitioner contested the suit and the following issues were framed (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed? (2) Whether the suit is not legally maintainable? (3) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected? (4) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? (5) Whether the suit is within time? (6) Whether the suit in the present form is not competent? (7) Relief. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court decided that the suit was not maintainable and the Court was not competent to go behind the notifications duly issued by the competent authorities and the plaintiffs' only remedy was to get compensation or to file a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which they did file and in consequence dismissed the suit on 8‑5‑1976. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal against the judgment and decree. The learned District Judge, Sialkot accepted the appeal on 3‑7‑1982 and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit restraining the petitioners from interfering with their possession. Being dis‑satisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned District 'Judge the Province of Punjab has filed this revision.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the learned District Judge has misread the evidence and further that he failed to determine that the acquisition of land had never been withdrawn by the Governor and no notification was issued by the Government in this context and the mere fact that the matter remained under consideration would not amount to cancellation of the notification by the Government. The question whether the Government had acceded to the request of the respondents to withdraw from the acquisition was duly considered by the learned District Judge. It is evident from the agreements P.7 and P.9 executed by the Deputy Project Director, Marala Barrage Project, Sialkot, that he had entered into an agreement with the land owners to exempt their land from acquisition on their undertaking to forego the cost incurred in prosecution of the proceedings and to abandon all claims against the Government for loss of crops etc. and further to allow the Irrigation Department to excavate earth etc. whenever necessary for the construction and maintenance of the Barrage. Furthermore, the Deputy Project Director had informed the respondents by his letter, dated 25‑11‑1972 Exh. P.10 that the action is already being taken for restoration of their land through civil authorities and that they should approach the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot for taking back their land. The learned District Judge has also referred to the statement of the Office Superintendent of the Land Acquisition Collector made before the Senior Civil Judge on 15‑11‑1971 that in view of the undertaking given by the plaintiffs that they would not have any objection to the use of the land by the WA PDA/Irrigation. They had already moved the Land Acquisition Collector to denotify the acquisition and that the sanction of the Commissioner was awaited. The learned District Judge also referred to letter, dated 19‑3‑1975 of the Executive Engineer, Marala Barrage Project Division. In the said letter there is a reference to Governor's directive contained in West Pakistan Government Letter No. U.O. 2659‑Sax/Rev/64, dated 17‑12‑1964 stating that the Governor was pleased to direct that whether the land was acquired on the ground that it would fall in the pond area and would be inundated by the backing up of the water, such area should not be acquired but should remain with the cultivators and past cases should be reviewed. The Executive Engineer further mentioned in his letter that in view of the above instructions the Deputy Project Director had made a proposal for the restoration of the acquired land to its original owners and had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot to surrender it under the rules. It would appear from the above circumstances that the Government) had withdrawn from the acquisition of the suit land. According to the learned District Judge there was nothing to show that any steps had been taken by the petitioner to obtain possession of the suit land before the above decision of the Government. The Government is competent to withdraw from the acquisition under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Governor of the Punjab had issued a direction to the petitioner not to acquire the land. The WAPDA Officials had complied with this direction and obtained an undertaking from the respondents that they would. not claim any compensation through registered agreements. A letter was also issued to the Deputy Commissioner to denotify the acquisition. The possession of the land had not yet been taken by the petitioner. It was in the year, 1975 that the WAPDA took a fresh decision that instead of the land being' required for pond area it was needed for the construction of a Band, According to the learned District Judge this could not have been done under the old notifications issued in 1967 and 1969 because once the Government had withdrawn from the acquisition of land, all the previous notifications stood automatically rescinded. I fully agree with the learned District Judge that the Government is entitled to reconsider its previous decision and restart acquisition proceedings. The Government will have to state the purpose for which the land was to be acquired and a fresh notification under section 4 will be necessary. The owners would have a right to raise objection under section 5‑A and the matter would be decided under section 6 of the Act and a fresh award will have to be given. The learned District Judge had considered all the legal questions involved in the suit and his view is correct. Fresh proceedings will have to be started for the acquisition in accordance with law. I find no legal defect or material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order and accordingly dismiss the revision in limine. M. Y. H Revision dismissed