1969 PLP 317 (SCMR)

Date of hearing :14th April 1969. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner in this case was the owner of Khasra No. 771 in the Revenue Estate of Kotha Kalan, Tehsil Rawalpindi. On the 8th July 1958, the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring this plot along with others, for the con struction of the Directorate of Soil Conservation. This was followed by a second Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the 17th September 1958. Then compensation was assessed by the land Acquisition Collector. There was a reference from this to the Civil Judge, Rawalpindi who considerably enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector, From this order the Government filed an appeal in the High Court, but during the pendency of the appeal, a second Notification was issued on the 22nd November 1959, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, acquiring the same property for the extension of the Ayub National Park, a different public purpose. This was followed in the usual course by another notification under section 6 of the Act on the 11th November 1960. There after, on the 31st May 1963, another Notification was issued by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division cancelling the notification issued by him under sections 4 and 6 of the said Act, on the 8th July 1958 and the 17th September 1958, respectively: The petitioner, thereupon, filed a suit on the 16th October 1965, for declaration that the notifications of the 22nd November 1959 and the 11th November 1960, and all consequent orders issued in pursuance of the said Notifications, were illegal, inoperative and void. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court and met the same fate on appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi. A second appeal from this decision was dismissed in limine by the High Court. A certificate under clause 10 of the Letters Patent was also refused on the ground that the law point involved was clear beyond any doubt. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and it is again contended by him that during the subsistence of the first notification of the 8th July 1958, the second notification of 22nd November 1959, could not have been issued. It appears to us, however, that there is no substance in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The legal effect of the second notification was that the first notification stood impliedly can celled. However, to remove any doubt with regard to it, the. Commissioner, it appears, out of abundant caution, issued the notification of the 31st May 1963, formally withdrawing the earlier notifications. There could possibly be no legal bar to the issuance of a second notification during the pendency of an earlier notification. But since the Government has chosen to issue a second notifica tion, it seems that the proceedings taken in pursuance of the prior notification have now been abandoned and fresh proceedings will be taken in pursuance of the notification of 1959. to complete the acquisition of the land in dispute. The compensation will now have to be re‑assessed on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date of the second notification. It is understandable that the petitioner should be anxious to have another notification issued after the formal withdrawal of the first notification by the Commissioner, dated the 31st May 1963, for, this would mean that the market value of the land acquired would be still further appreciated but he has, in our view, no legal right to insist upon this. In the present case, since the acquiring department was now of the Central Government, it may have been felt necessary to issue a second notification in order to divest the land from the previous acquiring department, namely; the Soil Conservation Directorate but no illegality has been committed by this. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.