1983 PLP 647 (CLC)

S. 44-Writ-Lathes-Petitioners filing writ six years after impugned award drawn and over one year after abatement of reference-No sufficient cause explaining delay-Petitioners falsely stating in writ petition, possession of acquired land with them-No question of " Invalidity of award having been taken before reference Judge-Writ peti tion after considerably long period, attracts doctrine of lathes.--[Lathes]. B. A. Sheikh for Petitioners. Rafique Mahmood Khan, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent. Date of institution: 10th August. 1981. SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN, ACTG. C. J.-By award dated 19-6-1975, . the land under Survey Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 25 min. measuring 15 kanals and 9 marlas situate in village Jatlan was acquired by the Collector, Land Acquisition Mirpur for construction of a playground to be attached to the Government High School, Jatlan, This award is challenged by the petitioners. namely Lal, Jalal, Muhammad Malik, Mst. Mukhtar Begum and Mst. Nazran Bi, Bashir Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad for the reasons that no notices under sections 9 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to them as mandatorily required and that the possession of the land acquired is still with the petitioners and so they have a right to challenge it at any time. This being so, according to them, the award is ab initio void for the non-issuance of the notices referred to above. As soon as they came to know of the award they filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the price of the land acquired but that reference failed due to promulgation of the Ordinance known as Azad Jammu & Kashmir Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Scheme) Ordinance, 1980 pertaining to the land acquired by the Government. By this Ordinance, the petitioners could have gone in appeal to the Commissioner against the impugned award within the time prescribed therein. But instead of going to the Commissioner in appeal preferred this writ petition. The written objections were filed by the Additional Advocate-General. He has averred that there was no need of issuance of notices under sections 9 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the impugned award was drawn in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the parties were heard. The learned Additional Advocate-General was unable to say as to how the issuance of notices under sect: is 9 and 12 was not necessary. On the other hand, in order to support his contention that non-issuance of notices under sections 9 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act rendered the entire proceedings taken thereafter void with the result that the award too becomes ab initio void, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a reference to P L D 1972 Lab. 458. But we also find that there are some other authorities which go to show otherwise, if,th owners of the land to be acquired become aware of the proceedings, the award may not turn to be void and the property acquired on the basis of such an award vests in the Government as soon as the possession of the land acquired passes on to the Government or the department concerned, B as the case may be. Non-issuance of notices was not pleaded as wilful and perverse vide A I R 1938 Sind 6, A I R 1959 Ph. 535, A I R 1920 Mad. 417 and A I R 192.3 Cal. 513 and we are in respectful agreement with these authorities. An application dated 16-6-1975 on the file of the Collector at leaf No. 45, made by one of the owners whose lands were acquired, shows that the acquisition proceedings were most probably within the knowledge of all the owners of the land in dispute. The owner of Survey No. 23 has not proceeded against the award. This survey number measures 6 kanals and 11 marlas. The petitioners approached the reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and no question of invalidity of award appears to have been taken by them before the reference Judge. After the reference abated in the Court of District Judge on 10-7-1980, the petitioners have had a right to proceed against the impugned award before the Commissioner but they, I think have failed in availing of that opportunity afforded to them by law. The impugned award was drawn in June, 1975 and the petitioners have` come to this Court by way of writ in the year 1981 after the lapse of a period of 6 years and again after abatement of the reference in the District Court, they even delayed the matter for over a period of one year and it was not explained as to why such a long delay was allowed to take place. The petitioners are guilty of laches which they sought to avoid by stating falsely in the writ petition that possession of the land acquired still lies with them. The perusal of the file of the Collector discloses that the possession of the land acquired was delivered to the Headmaster of the School concerned in the month of November, 1977 and since then even no approach was made to this Court to invoke its writ jurisdiction thereby meaning to say that they still have failed to seek a relief in time which is discretionary one for the court to grant or refuse the same, as the case may be. The coming of the petitioners to this Court considerably after a long period attracts the doctrine of laches for want of sufficient cause in explaining the gross delay caused. That being so, in the circumstances above, for the petitioners being guilty of lacbes, we are not inclined to invoke our writ jurisdiction being discretionary one in favour of the petitioners and dismiss this petition. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.