1993 PLP 2318 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 17th January.1993. This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 11277, 10974, 10975, 10976, 10977, 10978, 10979, 10980, 10981, 10982, 10983, 10984, 10985, 10986, 10987, 10988 and 10989 of 1992, in which same question arises.

2. The 'land measuring 16 Kanals was acquired by the Provincial Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The question of its payment for compensation was taken . up by the Land Acquisition Collector/Assistant Commissioner (Headquarter), Lahore, who announced his award on 8‑10‑1992. He fixed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs.95,000 per Marla plus 15% compulsory charges. The matter, as regards the enhancement of the price, is pending in reference and i5 not subject‑matter of this petition.

2. Here, the grievance of the petitioners is that instead of paying the amount of compensation determined by the Collector himself, it has been observed by him that as the petitioners derived their title from the PTD, which requires verification and validation, the amount of compensation be paid after verification of the PTD by the Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the Land Acquisition Act, it is the Collector who is obliged to determine the entitlement of the petitioners and he could not abdicate or delegate his authority to the Scrutiny Committee or any other outside Agency. It is also argued that having once accepted the title of the petitioners, the Collector could not deprive them of compensation determined by him.

4. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate General, concedes that under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, it is the duty of the Collector to determine the title to the acquired land and to pay the compensation. He is unable to defend the order to the extent that the payment of the amount of compensation has been made subject to the orders by an outside Agency. The learned Advocate‑General, however, has pointed out that the Collector himself could have obtained the relevant information from the Scrutiny Committee, if he so desires, about the PTD in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners. It is clear from the, provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that once a land is acquired by the Collector, he is under an obligation to determine the compensation payable .in respect of the land and also the entitlement of the claimants before him. In the present case, it is not disputed that the only I claimants were the petitioners. The Collector could not abdicate his authority to the Scrutiny Committee or any other authority. He could, of course, as pointed out by the learned Advocate‑General, obtain the relevant information himself.

5. For the reasons above, these petitions are allowed, the order to the extent that the payment shall only be made to the petitioners after the PTD has been verified by the Scrutiny Committee is declared to be without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The Collector may, however, ascertain himself as to whether the Permanent Transfer Deed in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners was genuine. If the answer be in affirmative, the compensation shall be paid to the petitioners.

6. As the matter remained pending for a considerable period of time, it is directed that the matter shall be finalised within one month from today declared to be unlawful and of no legal effect. Respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered by them from the petitioner forthwith. No order as to costs. H.B.T./H‑64/L Petition allowed.