1991 PLP 131 (CLC)

3. During the pendency of the appeals the petitioners made applications for payment of compensation originally assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Multan Development Authority and embodied in his award dated 31-12-1984. The applications were allowed and the petitioners accordingly received various amounts of compensation. Upon this an objection was raised before the learned Commissioner that the receipt of compensation amounted to acceptance of the award, hence the. appeals merited dismissal. The learned Commissioner upheld the objection on the ground that the petitioners had received compensation without any protest and were thus debarred to agitate against the award. He dismissed the appeals vide order dated 28-10-1985. The petitioners filed review: applications before the Commissioner which, too, were dismissed vide, order dated 8-12-1985.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the mere fact that the petitioners had received compensation according to the award was hardly sufficient to debar them from pressing their appeals on merits. They placed reliance on the cases of Wali Ahmad v. Collector Land Acquisition (1985 S C M R 224) and Aldoo Saleh and others v. Collector Deputy Commissioner, Lasbella District Uthal (PLJ 1985 Quetta 96 (DB). On the other hand the learned Addl: Advocate General urged that the Commissioner had rightly dismissed the appeals because after accepting the amount of compensation without protest the petitioners were debarred from challenging the correctness of the award. However, the learned counsel for the Multan Development Authority, in a straight forward and fair manner conceded that the appellate order could not be legally sustained because the learned Commissioner had misdirected himself in applying the law relatable to cases under the Land Acquisition Act and failed to advert to the provisions of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. The concession made by the learned counsel is without prejudice to the legal as well factual objections which he may legitimately raise before the learned Commissioner.

5. The appeals were filed before the learned Commissioner under section 14 of the Punjab Acquisition of Housing Act, 1973, which reads as under:- "

14. The person entitled to compensation under the award and Government or the Official Development Agency, as the case may be, may accept the award and intimate their acceptance in writing to the Collector within the period described in section 12. (2) The Government, or as the case may be, the Official Development Agency or any person aggrieved by an award of the Collector may, within one month of such award, appeal to the Commissioner. Where the affected party had no intimation of the award the appeal may be filed within six weeks of the award. The Commissioner may after giving the Government or as the case may be, the Official Development Agency and the persons affected by the award an opportunity of submitting any objection to the appeal and of being heard, make such order as he may deem (it." Evidently persons who do not accept the award in writing are entitled to prefer an appeal under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act, within a period of one month. The learned Commissioner ought to have examined the legal objection raised before him regarding the effect of receipt of compensation, on the pending appeals with reference to provisions of section 14 of the Act. The consideration as to whether the receipt of compensation was with or without protest was relevant only under section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is reproduced below:- "31. (1) On making an award under section 11 the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next subsection. (2) If they shall not consent to receive it,_ or if there by no person competent(2) If they shall not consent to receive it,_ or if there by no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted: Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18: Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this section the Collector may, with the sanction of the (Provincial Government), instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land‑revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned. (4) Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof. If a person accepts compensation without protest before seeking reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, then he is debarred to press his appeal on merits as held in Wali Muhammad's case. In Saleh's case it was held with reference to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act that after making an application for reference to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Act, acceptance of compensation was to be treated to be under protest. As mentioned above the present case is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. The appellate authority should have confined itself to I the provisions of the said Act particularly section 14 relating to the institution of appeal by aggrieved persons for deciding the question of competence of appeals after receipt of the amounts of compensation. The appellate authority committed a grave error of law in dismissing the appeals on the sole consideration that the petitioners had received the compensation without protest.

6. I, therefore, allow the petitions and declare the impugned orders dated 28‑10‑1985 and 8‑12‑1985 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly the appeals filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before the Commissioner, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with the law and the observations made in this judgment. The learned counsel for the 1 Multan Development Authority and the Land Acquisition Collector, Multan Development Authority, shall be at liberty to raise their legal objection regarding the effect of receipt of the compensation on the pending appeals with reference to the provisions of section 14 of the Act, as well as other objections on merits, before the Commissioner who shall consider the same and then decide the, appeals as ordered above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A./M‑2371/L Petitions accepted.