HYDERABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus GUL MUHAMMAD
These appeals under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Order 41, Rule 1, C.P.C. have been filed against the judgment of learned IVth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, dated 30‑9‑1986 whereby he had enhanced the compensation awarded by the Collector and Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.35,000 to Rs.1,00,000 per acre, besides the interest and the compulsory acquisition charge.
2. A preliminary objection is taken to these appeals on the ground that HDA for whom these lands were acquired had no locus standi to file the same.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the land in question was acquired for construction of Link Channel of Fasadi Wah for Hyderabad Water Supply Project of HDA in Deh Jamshoro taluka and city Hyderabad. At the instance of HDA the Provincial Government took possession under the provisions of sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and acquired the said lands.
Land Acquisition Officer acted as Collector and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000 per acre alongwith interest at the rate of 6$ and compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of Rs.15$ of the principal amount. The respondents received the above compensation under protest and maintained that the compensation claimed by them at the rate of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) per acre should have been awarded to them. They submitted references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act through the Land Acquisition Officer which were heard by the learned IVth Additional District Judge Hyderabad who after taking into consideration the evidence led by them came to the conclusion that the value of the land was more than the minimum demand of Rs.1,00,000 per acre made by the claimants. However, in view of the fact that he could not award the amount in excess of that which was demanded by the claimants, he enhanced the compensation from Rs.35,000 per acre to Rs.1,00,000 per acre and allowed interest of 6% per annum and compulsory acquisition charges of 15% on the cost of the land.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment HDA has filed this appeal through its Director General. It will be useful to reproduce section 18 of the Land Acquisition' Act which reads as under:‑
"(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested, or the amount of costs allowed.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken.
Provided that every such application shall be made,‑
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, subsection (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire."
It will also be useful to reproduce section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act which reads as under:‑
"50. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority of ‑Company‑(1) Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any company, the charges of an incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or Company.
(2) In any proceeding held before a Controller or Court in such cases the local authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation:
Provided that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference under section 18."
5. It would therefore appear that whereas a local authority for whom the land is being acquired has a right to appear and adduce the evidence before a Collector or a Court for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation, it is not entitled to demand a reference under section 18 since local authority has no right to ask the Collector for making a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act therefore on the same analogy the local authority would also have no right to prefer an appeal under section 54 of the said Act.
6. Reference in this connection may be made to the latest ruling on this point given by the Supreme Court in the case of Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer reported in P L D 1987 S C 485 which reads as under:‑
"From a perusal of the above provisions, it is manifest that section 50(2) expressly and in terms controls section 18 and takes away the right from the local authority or company for whom the land is being acquired to demand a reference under section 18. According to subsection (2) of section 50 a local authority or a company is only conferred the right to appear in proceedings before the Collector or the Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation but a reference under section 18 by them is barred (vide the proviso to subsection (2) of section 50).
It is, therefore, manifest that whatever may have been the object of the law, in view of plain language of section 50(2), there is no alternative but to give effect to it. Hence, so far as a local authority or a company is concerned, the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector becomes final; it has neither the right to ask for a reference under section 18, nor on a parity of reasoning, a right to prefer an appeal against a decision made upon a reference under section 18 of the Act by the Court."
The Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court relied upon the following cases in support of their view (1) WAPDA v. Aurangzeb Khan P L D 1975 Pesh. 1 (2) Pabna Electric Supply Company v. Kali Pershad and another P L D 1960 Dacca 461 and (3) Qasim Bhai and another v. Deputy Commissioner Dadu and others P L D 1968 Kar. 126.
7. The case of H.M. Saya and Company v. Wazir Ali Industries Karachi and another P L D 1969 S C 65 was cited before the Supreme Court. In that case it was held that a party which was adversely affected by an order passed in a suit or proceedings was competent to file an appeal against it even if it had not been impleaded as a party therein, was distinguished by the Supreme Court on the ground that it related to a suit and not to land acquisition proceedings as was rightly observed in the Peshawar case WAPDA v. Aurangzeb Khan referred to above.
8. I am therefore, of the clear view that none of these appeals are maintainable as the same have been filed by an officer who has got no locus standi to file the appeal and there is a statutory bar in its way under subsection (2) of section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeals are therefore dismissed.
M.Y.H./H‑78/K Appeals dismissed.