1995 PLP 1341 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 7th July, 1994. QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑This writ petition calls in question the order, dated 4‑1‑1993 of the learned Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division whereby the appeal of the petitioners Jalil Ahmad etc. directed against the Award dated 29‑8‑1991 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Peshawar Development Authority, Peshawar was dismissed as time‑barred.

2. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 80 Kanals 18 Marlas, including 5 Kanals 7 Marlas owned by the petitioner, situate in village Mera Haider Abad was compulsorily acquired in connection with the construction of the Ring Road. After completion of the preliminary proceedings the Award was announced on 29‑8‑1991 by which the compensation of the acquired land was awarded at the rate of Rs. 5,716 per Marla, which was determined on the basis of two years average as envisaged by section 55 of the North‑West Frontier Province Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978. ‑Taking exception, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner Peshawar Division on 10‑11‑1992 for enhancement of compensation, to Rs. 50,000 per Marla. An application was also filed alongwith the appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, the appeal as well as the application were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division on the sole ground of limitation and hence this petition.

3. Highlighting the causes of delay in filing the appeal the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners were residents of Chakdara and neither the Collector had given any public notice in regard to the acquisition of their land within the contemplation of section 5 of the N. W. F. P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 nor they had got the knowledge of the Award and besides both the legs of petitioner No. 1, who was the head of the family, were fractured in a road accident and he was unable to move about and had gone through a lengthy treatment. It was further urged that not only the compensation was on the lower side but the Land Acquisition Collector had not awarded any compensation for 60 incomplete shops which the petitioner had constructed on a portion of the acquired land.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand took the stance that a public notice was duly given by the Collector and even if the petitioners had no intimation of the award they were obliged under the provisions of section 61 of the N. W. F. P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 to file an appeal within six weeks of the Award but they had filed the appeal after about one year and two months.

5. The period of limitation for filing an appeal against an Award is governed by subsection (1) of section 60 of the N. W. F. P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 which reads as follows:‑‑‑ "The Board or any person aggrieved by an Award of the Collector made under section 53, may, within one month of such Award, appeal to the Commissioner. Where the affected party had no intimation of .the award, the appeal may be filed within six weeks of the Award:"

6. As mentioned earlier the Award in question was announced on 29‑8‑1991 while the appeal giving rise to this petition was filed by the petitioners on 10‑11‑1992. The contents of the Award make it manifest that the public notice provided by section 52 of the N. W. F. P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 was duly given. The Award was followed by disbursement of compensation and delivery of possession of the acquired properties therefore, it does not stand to reason that the petitioners had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings or the Award. Be that as it may, there is nothing on the record to augment the assertion that petitioner No. 1 had become temporarily invalid on account of his involvement in a road accident. In this background there can be no dispute with the proposition that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay of one year and two months. Needless to point out that it is now well‑settled that the party seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act has to explain delay of each day and unless that A is done a case for condonation of delay is not made out. In any event the knowledge of the Award is immaterial because under section 60 of the N. W. F. P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 the petitioners were bound to file the appeal within six weeks of the Award. The embargo imposed by section 60 on the filing of an appeal by an affected party having no intimation of the award is too explicit to admit of‑any other interpretation. The compensation awarded by the Collector is invoilable as it was determined within the framework of the N. W. F. P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 and there is not a scintilla of evidence on record to lend support to the allegation that the petitioners had raised any construction on the acquired land. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. AA./1758/P Petition dismissed.