Citation(s): 2008 SLD 1812 = 2008 SCMR 1280

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Civil Appeal No.954 of 2007, decision dated: 26-03-2008.(Against judgment/order, dated 18-11-1990
passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in I.C.A. No.19 of 1990 in Writ Petition No.1999 of
1986)

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, JJ

PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION and others

Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for
Appellants. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record
for Respondents

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)----Ss. 12-A, 18, 22-A & 50(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---
Land acquisition for government department, local authority or company---Reference and appeal, right of-
--Scope---Acquiring agency could neither file reference against award nor appeal against decision made in
reference, but could become a party in reference proceedings before Referee Court and file cross-
objections for reduction of compensation awarded by Collector---Acquiring agency could neither file
independent reference nor avail remedy of constitutional petition against award except to avail such legal
remedy of becoming a party and filing cross-objections in reference filed by landowner against award---
Collector under S.12-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not make any other change in award except
correction of clerical mistake or arithmetical error-Principles.

Military Estate officer v. Assistant Commissioner-cum-Collector 1997 CLC 556; The Murree Brewery Co.
Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others PLD 1972
SC 279; Behram Khan v. Military Estate Officer 1988 SCMR 1160; Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Pakistan 1991
SCMR 2193; Land Acquisition Collector v. Muhammad Iqbal 1992 SCMR 1245; Pir Khan v. Military Estate
Officer PLD 1987 SC 485 and Pakistan through Military Estate Officer v. Abdul Hayee Khan PLD 1995 SC
418 ref.

Pir Khan through his Legal Heirs v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad and others PLD 1987 SC 485 fol.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, appellant herein, through this
appeal, by leave of the Court, has assailed Award dated 18-1-1994 given by the Land Acquisition Collector
in respect of land measuring 470 acres 3 Kanals, 9 Marlas and houses, wells, shops, Bazaars, etc.
situated in villages namely Chirah and Harno Thanda Pani District Islamabad. The land was acquired for
use of the appellant and total compensation paid to the land owners was to the tune of Rs.18,051,148. In
addition thereto, 15% compulsory charge were also paid.

2. The facts of the case in small compass leading to the filing of instant appeal, are that the Land
Acquisition Collector on the basis of separate assessment of compensation of built up property i.e.
houses and wells and shops in a Bazaar situated in village Harno Thanda Pani made by Pak P.W.D. on 18-
1-1984 announced the award. The compensation of Rs.12,680,603 was assessed for wells and houses
and Rs.964,741 for the shops whereas an amount of Rs.4,405,798 was assessed as compensation of 53
houses of Village Chirah. Subsequent to the announcement of award, the Land Acquisition Collector
having found the assessment of compensation of the built up property in excess to the actual market
value, vide letter, dated 10-3-1984 pointed out to the Executive Engineer Central Civil Division No.3 Pak
P.W.D., Islamabad, that estimates of the value of built up property were exorbitant and in consequence
thereto, the appellant (Acquiring Agency) having completed the formalities proceeded to verify the
correctness of the assessment of built up property, made by the P.W.D. with the help of technical official
of the department and moved an application on 9-7-1984 under section 12-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 for correction of the award. The Land Acquisition Collector vide order, dated 18-11-1984 issued a
corrigendum to the extent of actual cost of built up property and declined the request of department in
respect of modification of award with the observation that after announcement of the award, he was
functus officio to make any change and returned the application with the observation for filing a reference
application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently, the appellant filed a
reference application and Land Acquisition Collector forwarded the same to the Senior Civil Judge,
Rawalpindi, vide order, dated 18-11-1984. The referee Court vide order, dated 4-3-1986 rejected this
application being not maintainable whereupon the appellant challenging the above order passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge along with the validity of award, dated 18-1-1984, filed a writ petition in the
Lahore High Court and on dismissal of writ petition filed an I.C.A. which was also dismissed. The
appellants then preferred a civil petition for leave to appeal before this Court in which leave was granted
vide order, dated 27-3-2007 as under:---

"(2) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have no alternate remedy under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to challenge the vires of the award or order of the Senior Civil
Judge, dated 4-3-1986. The petitioners have only right to file cross-objections under section 22-A of the
Land Acquisition Act in the reference filed by the respondents/land owners. He further maintains that
cross-objection cannot be equated with appeal in terms of proviso of section 3(2) of the Land Reforms
Ordinance, 1972. He further maintains that Courts have no authority to add or substitute any word in the
said provisions of law. Therefore, learned High Court was not justified to dismiss the I.C.A. of the
petitioners as not maintainable in terms of the aforesaid provisions of law. He further submits that the
order challenged by the petitioners (Award dated 18-1-1984 and order, dated 4-3-1986) were not original
order within the meaning of section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, as amended and it was not
subject to the incident of appeal, revision/review and as such Intra-Court Appeal against the
judgment/order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in constitutional petition was
competent as the remedy of cross-objection under section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not
parallel/equal to remedy of appeal, therefore, bar contained, in proviso of section 3 of Law Reforms
Ordinance, 1972 was not attracted in the case in hand.

(3) The learned counsel of the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and further submits
that Land Acquisition Collector has announced composite award. Petitions/appeals filed by the Land
Acquisition collector with regard to the compensation awarded to the respondents qua the land in
question were finalized by this Court vide judgment, dated 26-1-2007 passed in Civil Appeals Nos.1730 to
1734 of 2003 wherein the petitioners had challenged the award relating to super structure as evident
from record of the said cases.

(4) Leave is granted to consider, inter alia, the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
Appeal shall be heard on the present record. Parties are at liberty to file additional documents. Office is
directed to fix the appeal within four weeks in view of the circumstances of the case in hand."

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the land was acquired for Pakistan Atomic
Energy Commission which was established under Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Act, 1965 and
under the law, the remedy of reference and appeal provided under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not
available to the acquiring department, therefore, the award could be competently challenged before the
High Court in writ petition and that learned Single Judge in the High Court was misdirected in holding that
the appellants being not interested person within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act could not
challenge the award. Learned counsel submitted that the view of the High Court that award having
become final, the department had no other option except to give effect to the award was contrary to law
and contended that the department being an aggrieved person had locus standi to invoke the
constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter. He submitted that section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act would not affect the right of department of challenging the award in writ petition and
added that Standing Order No.28 was not confined only to the extent of interested persons rather it would
equally be applicable to the acquiring agency or the Local Authority as the case may be, therefore, the
appellants were wrongly non-suited. Learned counsel argued that in the precedent cases cited in support
thereof, the awards were set aside by the High Court in the writ petitions brought before it by the
interested persons, despite having an alternate remedy under the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the
question of maintainability of writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution and the locus standi of
the appellants, was to be determined accordingly and the appellants were to be treated at par to the
interested person. The learned counsel argued that there was no bar for the High Court to take notice of
the fraud in writ petition in the public interest and placing reliance on Military Estate Officer v. Assistant
Commissioner-cum-Collector 1997 CLC 556, The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the
Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others PLD 1972 SC 279, Pakistan through
Military Estate Officer v. Abdul Hayee Khan PLD 1995 SC 418 and Behram Khan v. Military Estate Officer
1988 SCMR 1160, has contended that High Court having not considered the matter in true prospect of
law, has not exercised the jurisdiction in proper manner.

4. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, in the light of law
laid down by this Court in Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Pakistan 1991 SCMR 2193, Land Acquisition Collector
v. Muhammad Iqbal 1992 SCMR 1245, Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer PLD 1987 SC 485 and Pakistan
through, Military Estate Officer v. Abdul Hayee Khan PLD 1995 SC 418, contended that I.C.A. filed by the
appellants before the High Court was incompetent as under section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
appellants had the right of filing cross-objections and Atomic Energy Commission being a Company in
terms of section 3(e) of the said Act read with section 3 of the Pakistan Energy Commission Ordinance,
1965, neither was entitled to file a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, nor could
challenge the award in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Under
the law a local authority or a company neither can file reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, nor can prefer an appeal on the decision made in a reference. In the case of Pir Khan through his
Legal Heirs v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad and others PLD 1987 SC 485 various provisions of Land
Acquisition Act were examined by this Court and while interpreting section 50(2) of the said Act, it was
held that the Act abridged the right of the local authority or the company to demand a reference under
section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act rather the Provincial Government or local authority or a company,
for which land is acquired, may file cross-objections under section 22-A of the Act in the reference filed by
any interested person against the award and Court in a suitable case, may also reduce the compensation
awarded by the Collector. Section 22-A was added in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, through West
Pakistan Ordinance No.49 of 1961, to enable the local authority or a company to file cross-objections and
sub-clause (5) in section 9 of the Act, was added, providing that a Government department, a local
authority or a company can become party in the proceedings before the referee Court. Section 11 of the
Act was also amended wherein after the words "any interested person", the words "a department of
Government, local authority or a company", were inserted. In consequence to the above amendment, the
acquiring agency got the right of filing cross-objections and is also entitled to be heard in an inquiry
conducted by the Collector for determination of the amount of compensation. Section 22-A confers a
right to the Provincial Government of a local authority or a company for whose benefit the land is
acquired to file cross-objections in the references under section 18 of the Act and the referee Court in
pursuance thereof and in exercise of its powers under the Act, may reduce the amount of compensation,
determined by the Collector.

6. In the light of legal position discussed above, the appellants had the right of becoming a party in the
proceedings before the referee Court in the reference filed by the landowners and also could file cross-
objections but they instead of availing of legal course, filed an application under section 12-A for
rectification of the award before the Land Acquisition Collector. Section 12-A has limited scope to the
extent of correction of clerical mistake or arithmetical error and no other change can be made by the
collector under the section. The appellants instead of becoming a party and filing cross-objections in the
reference filed by the landowners under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed an
independent incompetent reference before the referee Court at belated stage. The careful examination of
various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act referred to above, would clearly show that the appellants
had statutory right of filing cross-objections in the reference filed by the landowners and in case of
rejection of the same further remedy could be availed whereas they without availing this efficacious
remedy in the form of cross-objections provided under the law, accepted the award and subsequently
preferred to avail the remedy of writ petition before the High Court for modification of the award. The
learned single Judge in chamber in the High Court as well as the I.C.A. Bench in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, has correctly held that the appellants had no right to file an
independent reference or avail the remedy of writ petition against the award and we would take no
exception to the above view of the High Court.

7. In the light of foregoing reasons and the discussion, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the
judgment of the High Court, calling for our interference and consequently, this appeal fails which is
dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed