2011 YLR 2500 (PLP)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are father and son, their permanent residence is at Chak Fattu, Tehsil Fateh-Jang, District Attock and are owners of land measuring 20 kanals, 11 marlas bearing Khasra No.337, situated in the revenue estate of Chak Fattu, Tehsil Fateh-Jang, District Attock.

2. Further contends that for the purposes of construction of New International Airport, Islamabad, in the area of Tehsil Fateh Jang, District Attock the above-said land of petitioners was acquired, thereafter the respondents also took over the possession of the land on 8-9-2005. Award was announced. The petitioners had also constructed a poultry farm upon the acquired land after spending a huge amount. Thereafter, with the intervention of higher official the award dated 8-9-2005 was set aside by the order of EDO (R), Attock, dated 8-3-2006 who also enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,00,000 for the petitioners' land measuring 20 kanals, marlas fully described above. Learned counsel further contends that the amount is lying with the DDO(R)/Land Acquisition Collector (respondent No.4) who has been avoiding the payment of Rs.1,60,00,000, to the petitioners on one or the other pretext, therefore, writ petition be accepted, respondent No.4 be directed to release the amount/compensation of acquired land measuring 20 kanals, 11 marlas to the petitioners.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed this writ petition and has contended that award was announced on 20-7-2005, thereafter, a suggestion was made for the enhancement of award by the EDO(R), Attock vide office letter dated 5-3-2006 but, later on, all the recommendations were withdrawn and original award was neither cancelled nor modified. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived. This writ petition without merit, it be dismissed.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that on 9-7-2004 a notification under section 4 was published for the information public?-at-large that the land for construction of Airport is likely to be acquired, there-after, on 20-7-2005 notification under section 17(4) and 6 was issued .on 8-9-2005. After formal proceedings, on the basis of annual average price, award was announced. According to the statement of DDO(R), compensations are lying with him. Record further reveals that vide order dated 8-3-2006 EDO(R), Attock made a suggestion that matter for the enhancement of compensation be placed before the District Price Assessment Committee to revise the compensation on the following grounds: (i)???????? Change from rate @ Rs.21487/60 to Rs.26277/37 per kanal (actually pertaining to Mian Rashida, the adjoining village) was not placed before the DPAC. (ii)??????? The rate of another adjoining village namely Kak Chaudhry @ Rs.1,03,139.01 per kanal was not taken into account and placed? before the DPAC for consideration. (iii)?????? Vide his No. B.V. 533/16/D.RA dated 6-1-2005, the DO (R) did not give his considered opinion regarding the rate/price keeping in view the rates of Mian Rashida and Kak Chaudhry. (iv)?????? The incumbent to the post of EDO (R) was not independent as only one and the same officer acted as DO (R) as well as EDO (R)(competent authority)." But thereafter, vide order dated 21-3-2006, the EDO(R), Attock withdrew the earlier letter. Record further reveals that award has already been announced on 8-9-2005. The majority of owners whose land had been acquired have received compensation but the petitioners have not availed the proper remedy in shape of reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, therefore, the award announced on 8-9-2005 has attained finality which could not be reconsidered/amended either by the respondents or by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Further when majority of owners have received compensation without protest and when there is no evidence on the file to suggest that owners were either compelled or forced to receive compensation, no case for interference is made out. Respectful reliance is placed on 1995 CLC 1561. This writ petition is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed. A.R.K./S-55/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.