Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 75 of 1979, decided on 21st October, 1981.

-- Ss. 18 & 54-Comp.-nsation--Order of Collector dismissing objection ''' petition after determining adequacy of amount awarded--Held an "award" within meaning of term used in Act and appealable to high Court under S. 54.--[Compensation].

Qazi Abdur Rashid for Petitioners.

This revision petition is brought by Mehdi Hussain Shah and others against the Provincial Government and others, wherein it is claimed that the compensation amount for the land of the petitioners acquired for the construction of Tarbela Dam should be re-assessed on the basis of the judg ment, dated 4-7-1979, passed by the Additional District Judge in Objection Petition No. 500/4 of 1976.

2. The petitioners herein had filed Objection Petition No. 247/4 of 1976 against the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector, Haripur District Hazara in respect of their land acquired for the construction of Tarbela Dam. The same was referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court for determination. The Court while deciding the Objection Petition dismissed the same on 2-3-1978. No appellant against that judgment was taken out by the petitioners to the High Court, as provided in section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. After the judgment dated 4-7-1979 in Object6on Petition No. 500/4 of 1976, filed by some other persons, was passed, the petitioners thought of trying their luck by moving this revision petition. .

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the Objec tion Petition No. 247/4 of 1976 filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisi tion Act by the petitioners herein was decided by the Court without enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Collector, that decision would be called an 'order' and not an award' within the meaning of the term used in the Land Acquisition Act. He further argued that the Court which had decided that Objection Petition, though acting under the Land Acquisition Act, would be deemed as a 'statutory arbitrator' appointed under the Arbitration Act, and since such an order made by an Arbitrator is not appealable under the Arbitration Act, no appeal could, therefore, be preferred to the High Court against that order made by the Court, the provisions of section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act notwithstanding. In this respect he relied on section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act and section 39 and section 46 of the Arbitration Act.

4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, which to me appear without substance. The Court while deciding the Objection Petition No. 247/4 of 1976, filed by the petitioners herein, did go into the merits of the Objection Petition by considering the relevant facts in order to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the amount awarded by the Collector was adequate. After determining the adequacy of the amount awarded by the Collector, the Court dismissed the Objection Petition. Such final order made by the Court, though not enhancing the compensation amount, was an award within the meaning the term used in the Land Acquisition Act, and was appealable to the High Court under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners herein did not file appeal against the award so made by the Court and now they cannot, in my view, file a revision petition in the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.