THE LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LAHORE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN vs COL.
This is an appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore. The core matter involves land acquisition proceedings under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and the Land Acquisition Act, wherein a supplementary award concerning the respondents' land was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. The respondents filed objections against the award, which the Collector dismissed as time-barred for not being presented within six months, refusing to refer them to the Tribunal. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, counsel for the respondents stated they no longer wished to challenge the validity of the award, and with the consent of the parties, the objections had already been referred to and decided by the tribunal. Consequently, the Supreme Court noted that the award remained in the field and the objections had been duly disposed of by the tribunal.
- Whether objections against a land acquisition award can be treated as barred by time if not presented within six months of the making of the award?
- Can a Land Acquisition Collector refuse to refer objections to the Tribunal for adjudication?
- What is the effect when objections to an award are referred to and decided by the tribunal with the consent of parties during the pendency of an appeal?
- Section 36, Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922
- Section 41, Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922
- Section 11, Land Acquisition Act 1894
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 12th May 1959, passed by a Division Bench of the then High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, accepting the writ petition filed by the respondents against the appellant herein.
2. Briefly the relevant facts are these. A scheme a known as the University Campus Scheme was published in the Gazette on tie 31 March, 19.54 under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. It was sanctioned adder section 41 of the Act by tie Provincial Government on the 24th January, 1957. In that connection, the Land Acquisition Collector made his award on the 20th September, 1960. Afterwards he made a supplementary award which related to the land of the respondents, announced on the 29th December 1952, under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Admittedly, the respondents were not present at the time of making of the award.
4. Afterwards, on the 17th August, 1963, the respondents filed their objec--tions against the award under section FR of the Land Acquisition Act. But the Collector on the 10th February, 1965, treated the objections before biro as barred by time, since they were not presented within six months of the making of the award and refused to refer the same to the Tribunal for adjudication.
5. Today, before us, Malik Mohammad Aslam, learned counsel for the respondents, stated that he did not wish to challenge and dispute the validity of the award dated 29th October, 1962 made by the Land Acquisition Collec--tor. His objections against the award having been referred to the tribunal with the consent of the parties in pursuance to the order passed by this A Court, the decision has been rendered thereon by the tribunal on the 3rd May, 1976. The result is that while the said awardst remains in the field a prayed, the objections to the award have also been disposed of in due course by the tribunal.