ABDUL KARIM and others vs LAHORE CANTT. COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
This civil appeal arose from a dispute regarding the acquisition of land measuring 5 Kanals by the Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Housing Society. Following the acquisition, award, and delivery of possession, which the appellants acknowledged via the 'Roznamcha Waqaati', a mutation was attested in favour of the Society. The appellants challenged this mutation through the revenue hierarchy, eventually reaching the High Court via writ petition. The appellants contended that because a Notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 had been set aside in a previous judicial precedent, the acquisition itself was void. The Supreme Court addressed whether a mutation could be challenged independently without challenging the underlying acquisition proceedings and award. The Court held that the mutation was merely a consequential act giving effect to the award and possession. It affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that a challenge to a mutation is ineffective when the underlying land acquisition proceedings and award remain unchallenged. The Court further observed that the appellants' reliance on the setting aside of the Section 17(4) notification was misplaced, as that relief was specific to other litigants and did not invalidate the entire acquisition process.
- Can a mutation be challenged independently if the underlying land acquisition proceedings and award remain unchallenged?
- Does the setting aside of a notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for specific landowners automatically invalidate the acquisition for all parties?
- Is a mutation valid if it is attested based on an award and the subsequent delivery of possession?
- Section 17(4), Land Acquisition Act 1894
' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The property measuring 5 Kanals comprising in 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. After the announcement of the award and the delivery of possession to the Society, which fact was also testified by the appellants by signing the report "Roznamcha Waqaati", Mutation No,564 was attested in favour of the Society. The appellants challenged the aforesaid mutation by filing an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed.
However, they succeeded before the same forum i,e, the Collector, by moving an application for recalling of the earlier order and allowing their appeal with the resultant consequence of sending the same, by the Collector to the Assistant Collector. This order of the Collector was challenged by the Society, through an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the order of the Collector was set aside which was also endorsed by the Board of Revenue while exercising the Revisional jurisdiction. The appellants being aggrieved of the order passed against them, by the Revenue Hierarchy, filed writ petition before the High Court and having not succeeded, have now come to this Court through the instant appeal by challenging the judgment of the High Court and that of the forums below.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants while impugning the judgment of the High Court, has mainly contended that in view of the setting aside of the Notification under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, on the basis of the judgment reported in Peoples Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Lahore v. Collector, Lahore District and 4 others 1979 CLC 180, the property shall be deemed to have never been acquired and the mutation in question was illegal and particularly when the Society had withdrawn the amount of compensation. The above mentioned contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was repelled by the High Court on the ground that the mutation was attested on the basis of the award followed by the delivery of possession which finds mentioned in the Roznamcha Waqaati and the appellants had never challenged the acquisition of the land and the mutation is only to give effect to the award after possession had been delivered and the appellants by mere challenge to the mutation would not get anything unless the land acquisition proceedings and the subsequent award have not been challenged and that the Notification under section 17(4) will be deemed to have been set aside to the extent of those landowners who had challenged it. We while endorsing the judgment of the High Court may observe that cogent reasons have been advanced by the High Court while repelling the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and we are of the opinion that the mere challenge to the mutation attested in pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings and on the basis of award would be of no consequence and particularly when the respondents have deposited the compensation and has not withdrawn the whole compensation but has withdrawn only to the extent qua the notification to the extent of the property in respect of which it had been cancelled.
3. Resultantly, the appeal has got no force and the same is dismissed.