REHANA KAUSAR Versus PROJECT DIRECTOR

This judgment will dispose of three Constitution petitions (W.P. 4814/84';' W.P. 299/85 and W.P. 363/87) as the questions of law and fact involved in these petitions are one and the same.

2: The petitioners who are owners of agricultural land situated in village Bhobhattian Raiwind Road, Tehsil and District Lahore, have in these Constitution petitions challenged the Notification issued under Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land owned by them for the construction of Second Campus of Government College of Technology, Lahore. The Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4‑5‑1983 while Notification under section 6 read with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19‑10‑1984. The possession of the land was thereafter delivered to the acquiring party, Project Director, Asian Development Project Technical Education Development, Punjab on 16‑10‑1984.

3. The acquisition was challenged on the grounds that the acquisition is void as the provisions of Act were not observed inasmuch as the Notification under section 4 of the Act was not published and that no justification existed for invoking the provisions of section 17 (4) of the Act. It was added that the petitioners' land has been indiscriminately split into pieces which could easily be otherwise avoided, had the authorities applied their mind and an opportunity of hearing been granted to the land owners and that the land is being acquired for a song which is again a fraud on the statute. In the two petitions which are pending since 1985 the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are ready to arrive at compromise if the petitioners are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000 per kanal which was the market rate at the time of acquisition of land. In view of this offer learned Additional Advocate‑General sought adjournment to consult the authorities. The matter was then adjourned to 19‑8‑1985. On this date learned Additional Advocate General informed the Court that the Government has been moved in the matter of enhancement of compensation and that the matter was under consideration of the Board of Revenue. Various adjournments were obtained and ultimately these petitions were admitted to hearing on 12‑11‑1986 as it appeared that it was not possible for the authorities to agree on the enhancement of compensation out of Court. The request to stop construction was not allowed by this Court observing that as far as interim relief is concerned the learned Additional Advocate‑General has pointed out that construction work in pursuance of the loan advanced by the Asian Development is in progress and it will not be in the public interest at this stage to stop the execution of the scheme. It was added that the application for temporary relief shall, however follow the result of main writ petition. The two petitioners it appears approached the honourable Supreme Court by filing petitions Nos.982/‑86 and 27/87 but again these petitions were dismissed as not pressed in view of the statement made by Additional Advocate‑General that he is pursuing the matter regarding fair compensation. Meanwhile Fazal Haq and others filed a third Constitution petition in 1987 (W.P. 363/87). This petition was also ordered to be heard alongwith aforesaid two Constitution petitions. These petitions were then fixed before me. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate‑General addressed the arguments on merits. On 21‑12‑1987 it was suggested by the learned counsel for the parties that the Collector be directed to issue notices under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act so that the claims are filed by the land owners and the award is made. It was observed by this Court that it appears that the petitioners will feel satisfied if reasonable amount of compensation is awarded. In these circumstances, the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to serve notices under section 9 of the. Land Acquisition Act and after receiving the claims make the award under section 12 of the Act within two months. The proceedings in these petitions were adjourned to 14‑3‑1988.

4. The learned Collector has made the award in the meanwhile. A copy of the award dated 9‑3‑1988 has been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the price of the land has been fixed as was proposed earlier and that the Collector has failed to take notice of the documents and sale‑deeds which were produced by the petitioners to substantiate the market rate claimed by them. It may be noted that on many dates of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners indicated that the petitioners will be satisfied if the compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.25,000 per kanal.

5. The project has since been completed at a huge cost. The main interest of the petitioners is to receive adequate compensation. Their grievance is that despite taking adjournments, the authorities had failed to act responsibility and to order payment of fair compensation to ‑the petitioners. The concerned Officers seem not prepared to take responsibility of the decision to enhance the amount of compensation.

H.B.T/R-89/L Order Accordingly