2007 PLP 18 (CLC)

SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.

The land in dispute measuring 5 Kanals comprising Khasra No.707/121 along with other land was acquired for the Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Housing Society under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was announced on 24-12-1978 and possession of the disputed land delivered to the Society on 24-12-1978 as is borne out by report "Roznamcha Waqiati" No.4070 dated 24-12-1978. This report was signed by Abdul Karim petitioner before this Court. A copy of this report has been filed on the record of this petition by the petitioner.

2. On the basis of the award aforesaid Mutation No.564 was attested in favour of the Society on 30-12-1979. Against this mutation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Collector which was dismissed on 5-8-1986 as barred by time. The petitioners, however, again approached the learned Collector with an application under Order IX, rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order dated 5-8-1986. This time the appeal of the petitioners was allowed by the learned Collector vide order, dated 24-4-1988 and the case was remanded to the learned Assistant Collector. Against the said order, the Society filed an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner which was allowed vide order dated 11-10-1988. The petitioners challenged the said order in a revision petition before the learned Member, Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 29-5-1999. The orders passed by the Revenue Authorities have been assailed in this constitutional petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Peoples Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Lahore v. Collector, Lahore District and 4 others 1979 CLC 180 that the notification dated 8-2-1978 issued under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act having been set aside the land of the petitioners shall be deemed never to have been acquired and, therefore, Mutation No.564 transferring the disputed land in favour of the Society was plainly illegal. Also that the Society had withdrawn the amount of compensation and, therefore, their land stood released.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Society contended that the land in dispute was duly acquired, the award rendered, the Society had duly entered possession of the said land and, therefore, the mutation in favour of the Society had rightly been attested. He further submits that the judgment rendered in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners because they were not party to the said case and had never challenged acquisition of their land.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The disputed mutation was entered and attested on the basis of the award which includes the land in dispute. Further, according to the report "Roznamcha Waqiati" No.4070, possession was duly transferred to the Society on 24-12-1978. The petitioners never challenged acquisition of the disputed land. The disputed mutation only gave effect to the award after possession had been delivered to the Society. No exception could be taken to this mutation as long as the acquisition proceedings in respect of the disputed land remained in tact. A As far as the argument based on the case of Peoples Cooperative Housing Society (supra) is concerned the notification under section 17(4) will be deemed to have been set aside to the extent of those landowners who had challenged it. Since the land in dispute stands acquired for the Society and mutation duly entered no case is made out for interference.

6. As to the other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the Society has explained that some land was excluded from acquisition and the amount of compensation was withdrawn to the extent of the land so excluded. He submits that as far as the land of the petitioners is concerned, compensation stands duly deposited in the Government Treasury and the petitioners will be at liberty to withdraw the amount of compensation. For what has been stated above, I see no force in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./A-189/L Petition dismissed.