SULTAN ERAJ ZAMA Versus W.A.P.D.A.

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment dated 5‑7‑1983 of the Peshawar High Court; whereby, two writ petitions of the respondent No. 1 were allowed. So‑called "Supplementary" award regarding loss of earning in addition to the award regarding land and superstructures, in favour of the owners, was set aside as without lawful authority and the case was remanded.

2. It is clear from the impugned judgment that superstructure and the land underneath the shops in dispute, after acquisition for WAPDA, having already been compensated, the owners have been allowed huge sums as compensation for the loss of earnings through a novel contrivance of two additional Supplementary Awards No. 89‑ there being obviously other earlier supplementary awards. This method of so‑called supplementary in awards besides other infirmities, undoubtedly opens ways and means for undesirable practices. The same therefore has been depricated See Prag Narain case A 1932 P C 102.

3. Learned counsel contends that the loss of earnings is a necessary part of compensation as provided in clauses firstly and fourthly of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They read as follow:‑‑

4. "23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.‑‑(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration‑‑ first, the market‑value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1); fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;"

5. A judgment of this Court has already taken note of the argument being advanced in this matter. See Nishat Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. v. Sher Ahmed Khan and others P L D 1976 S C 531.

6. No further discussion is necessary in this case regarding the interpretation of the provisions relied upon. It is however clear that section 23 deals with some matters to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation for the "land". The sub‑clauses of subsection (1) thereof do not independently relate to separate properties to be compensated separately. They are some of the "considerations" or the "matters" which can be taken into account regarding the land, the compensation for which is to be determined. Thus, it is to be one whole compensation. It was so determined here in the first original awards. If the petitioners felt aggrieved then that the matter mentioned in clause fourthly of section 23(1) was not taken note of in that award proper remedy through reference should have been sought. A new or supplementary award as if for another property or person could not have been sought or obtained in this behalf. The entire exercise of the supplementary awards in dispute regarding loss of earnings, in these two petitions were misconceived and have rightly been set aside.

7. With the above observations finding no force in these petitions, leave to appeal is refused.

8. M . B . A . /S‑77/ S Petition dismissed