The Deputy Director, Officer (Reveune) Land Acquisition Officer, Sanghar
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sindh High Court directing the petitioners to read an earlier order in consonance with Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, notwithstanding the absence of its mention in the main order. The core legal question concerns the legality of rectifying an omission regarding the mandatory award of fifteen per centum on the market value of compulsorily acquired land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order rectifying the bona fide error or omission suffered from no error of law or jurisdiction, as the court is legally bound to award the statutory percentage for compulsory acquisition. The petition was accordingly dismissed as no question of law of public importance was made out.
- Is a court bound to award a percentage on the market value of land in consideration of the compulsory nature of its acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Whether the High Court can direct an earlier order to be read in consonance with statutory compensation provisions to rectify an omission?
- Section 23(2), Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 34, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 28-A, Land Acquisition Act 1894
ORDER
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against. Sindh High Court order dated 25.8.2004 passed in C.P. No. D-315 of 2003 directing the petitioners to read earlier order of the High Court dated 13.5.2004 in consonance with Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1894) irrespective of the fact that there was no mention of it in the main order.
2. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General, Sindh in respect of this petition and gone through the impugned order as well as the language employed in Section 23(2) of the Act 1894. A bare perusal of the provision of law clearly tends to show that the Court is bound to award a sum of fifteen per centum on the market value of the land in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
3: ln the present case, High Court had already determined the value of the land and awarded interest under Section 34, and additional compensation under Section 28-A of the Act 1894 to the land owner, lt was only a bona i.e error or omission, which was sought to be rectified through the impugned order, which, in our considered view, does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction.
4. In the given circumstances, no question of law of public importance is spelt out. Resultantly, petition- fails and is hereby dismisse.