1988 PLP 1929 (CLC)

The facts are that some land belonging to the respondent Anjuman alongwith other area, was acquired by the Lahore Improvement Trust (now Lahore Development Authority) for the purpose of University Scheme formulated under section 24/28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1922. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on 20‑9‑1960 which was followed by a supplementary award, dated 29‑10‑1962. The Anjuman filed objections under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act complaining that the compensation assessed was inadequate and that 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges were also not awarded to them. The matter fell for adjudication before the Lahore Improvement Trust Tribunal respondent No.2 herein, who recorded its decision, dated 27‑3‑1968 and found the Anjuman entitled to the grant of 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges.

2. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Only the validity of grant of 15 per cent 'of the market value of the land, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition envisaged by section 23(2) of the Land .Acquisition Act, is the subject‑matter of the writ petition. The grounds urged in the writ petition in this behalf are:‑ (A) That the proviso clause (2) of paragraph 10 of the Schedule of the Town Improvement Act, 1922 has been protected .as an existing law by subsection (4) of section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. By virtue of this proviso, subsection (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act shall not be applicable t~ the land acquired under the Town Improvement Act. The decision contained in P L D 1966 SC 547, applies only to acquisition of land by the Provincial Government for setting up a Satellite Town under subsection (3) of section 66 of the Town Improvement Act, which was incorporated in the said Act by an amendment‑in the year 1953. (B) That respondent No.2 has failed to appreciate the implication of the decision in P L D 1966 SC 547 in so far as it does not relate to the land acquired by the Improvement Trust under the Town Improvement Act as distinguished from the land acquired by the Provincial Government under section 66(3) of the Town Improvement Act of 1922 for the purpose of Satellite Town. (C) That the modification of the Land Acquisition Act by para.10 of the Schedule of the Town Improvement Act was protected as a law in force in terms of section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Being a protected law the award of compulsory charges of fifteen per cent. by respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction and wholly void. That being the case, the award of interest allowed by the respondent No. 2 at the rate of 6 per cent on the amount of fifteen per cent compulsory charges from the date of the possession is also void."

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. In the course of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner abandoned the aforesaid grounds and came forthwith altogether a new plea that the Land Acquisition Collector had no power to make the supplementary award, dated 29‑10‑1962 and as the Anjuman did not assail the validity of the original award wherein 15 per cent compulsory charges were not awarded to them it was not open to them to approach the Tribunal on the strength of the supplementary award and seek redress of their grievance. In support of the proposition that the Land Acquisition Collector was not vested with the authority to make supplementary award reliance is placed on Baru Mal Jain and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others A I R 1962 All. 61 and Raja Sultan Eraj Zaman and others v. WAPDA and others P L D 1988 SC

29. In the submission of the learned counsel as the supplementary award is without jurisdiction the entire super‑structure anchored on it suffers from the same illegality. .

4. It is to be noticed that the grounds now sought to be pressed into service were never raised in the writ petition. It is pending in this Court for the last about 19 years and the petitioner never applied for incorporation of these grounds therein by way of amendment. However, during his submission the learned counsel made a verbal request for grant of permission to amend the petition but it is now too late to ask for such an indulgence. It cannot be denied that the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector, culminating in the supplementary award without any demur. Further, no objection to the Collector's authority to make the supplementary award, was raised before the Tribunal. The petitioner rather acquiesced in these proceedings. Even if the award suffers from any such illegality, the petitioner's own conduct disentitles him to any relief under writ jurisdiction which is essentially discretionary.

5. As regards the argument that supplementary award is a void order and does not create any right, a reference to Messrs Conforce Ltd. v. Syed Ali Shah etc. P L D 1977 SC 599 will provide: However, in view of the frequency with which gross negligence is sought to be condoned on the plea that the impugned order was void or without jurisdiction, we would observe that a void order or an order without jurisdiction is only a type of an illegal order passed by a Court and the fact that it has been passed and that it may, therefore, create rights cannot be altered by describing it as void or without jurisdiction. And, further, the expression void orders and orders without jurisdiction are overworked expressions... " It may be added that according to the learned counsel for the Anjuman their land was not covered by the first award and was acquired only under the second award. His this plea finds support from para. No.8 of the impugned order which shows that so far as the respondent's land is concerned, the 2nd award is quite independent of the first award.. 6.I have also examined the two precedents cited on behalf of the petitioner. In the judgment from the Indian jurisdiction the Land Acquisition Collector after making award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act revised the same at the direction of his superior Officer. The second award made by him was thus declared to be illegal and violative of the principle of natural justice. In the case of Raja Sultan Eraj Zaman and others v. WAPDA and others the Collector made a second award to compensate the land owners for their loss‑ of earnings, which was found to be misconceived .and set aside. These precedents have no application to the casein hand, particularly when the land belonging to the respondent was not the subject‑matter of the award, dated 20‑9‑1960 but was acquired for the first time under the second award.

7. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is dismissed but the parties are left to.bear their own costs. S. Q./L‑28/L Petition dismissed.