Waris Khan Vs District Collector Nowshera/Collector Land Acquisition Nowshera & others

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P No.2581-P/2025 Waris Khan Vs. District Collector Nowshera/Collector Land Acquisition Nowshera & others.

Date of hearing 04.03.2026.

Mr. Shahid Riaz Burki, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bilal Khan, AAG, alongwith Zia Ullah Khan, PS to DC Nowshera.

Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 3 & 4.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J: - The instant petition, along with connected Writ Petition No. 3639-P/2025 titled “Pervez Khan Vs. District Collector Nowshera / Collector Land Acquisition Nowshera & others,” has been filed by the petitioners assailing the inaction of the Collector/Deputy Commissioner in failing to incorporate the assessed compensation for superstructure, trees, tube well and other improvements in the acquired property. The property was acquired through Award No. 150 dated 19.02.2019 and Award No. 477 dated 25.06.2019 pertaining to the revenue estates of Nandrak, Tehsil Jehangira and Mian Essa Khel, respectively, issued for the purpose of the CPEC City Housing Scheme in Tehsil Jehangira, District Nowshera. According to the petitioners, the omission to include the compensation for the superstructure and other improvements in the awards is unjust, unconstitutional, illegal, and without lawful authority, and is therefore inoperative upon their rights; hence, the filing of the present petitions.

2.Waris Khan and Pervez Khan, the petitioners in the respective petitions, are the recorded owners of the properties which were acquired for a public purpose, and the relevant awards were announced in the year 2019. Their primary grievance is that, at the time of preparation and announcement of the awards, the cost of the existing superstructure, trees, tube well and other improvements on the acquired land was neither

assessed nor included in the awards. Consequently, no compensation in respect of these improvements was reflected therein. The petitioners submitted applications before the Collector, who, after considering their grievance, directed that the requisite assessment be carried out. Pursuant thereto, the assessment was conducted by the concerned revenue officials and the relevant departmental authorities, and the same was finalized and announced vide Office Order No. 927/DC/LAB/NSR dated 28.10.2019. However, despite completion of the assessment, the same was not incorporated into the awards. As a result, the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity to seek a reference under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides a mechanism for the Collector to refer disputes regarding apportionment or entitlement of compensation to the Referee Court. Consequently, the petitioners, being aggrieved persons, were prevented from having their claim for compensation adjudicated by the competent court in accordance with law; hence, the filing of the present petitions.

3.Arguments heard, record perused.

4.Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that where the amount of compensation has been determined under Section 11 and a dispute arises regarding the apportionment of such compensation or as to the persons entitled to receive the same, the Collector may refer the matter to the Court for adjudication. The provision, therefore, presupposes the existence of a determined amount of compensation forming part of the award. Where no compensation has been assessed or incorporated in the award, a reference under Section 30 cannot be maintained, as there would be no amount available for apportionment. In such circumstances, the appropriate course is either to seek correction or supplementary determination of compensation by the Collector, or, where the competent authority fails to include legally assessable compensation, to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of the

grievance. Admittedly, the process for acquisition of the petitioners’ property was initiated at the request of the acquiring department, namely the Frontier Works Organization, and was carried to its logical conclusion by the acquiring agency i.e., the Collector, on the basis of the arrangement reflected in Award Nos. 150 dated 19.02.2019 and 477 dated 25.06.2019. It is, however, undisputed that despite the issuance of the said awards, the assessment relating to the improvements existing on the acquired land—such as superstructure, trees, tube well and other installations—was not completed prior to the announcement of the awards. Consequently, the compensation payable in respect of such improvements, which admittedly formed part of the petitioners’ property and belonged to them as landowners, was not incorporated in the awards. Both petitioners indisputably fall within the definition of “persons interested” as contemplated under Section 3(b) of the Act. The owners of acquired land are entitled not only to compensation for the land itself but also for the improvements standing thereon, and such compensation ought to have been assessed and reflected in the award announced under Section 11 by the acquiring agency. The omission to include the assessed value of these improvements in the award has thus created an anomalous situation, whereby the petitioners have been deprived of the statutory remedy of seeking a reference regarding apportionment or entitlement under Section 30, owing to the absence of any quantified amount in the award pertaining to those improvements. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 constitutes a comprehensive statutory framework regulating the acquisition of land for public purposes. It prescribes the procedure for identification and classification of the land to be acquired, determination and award of compensation, payment of such compensation to the persons interested, the right of objection to the award, and the mechanism for resolution of disputes arising out of the award between the acquiring department, the acquiring agency, and the landowners through

reference to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Reference may be made to the case of Sher Ahmad Khan and 4 Others Versus Land Acquisition Collector and 2 Others (PLD 1978 Peshawar 138). In the case of Habib Ullah versus Land Acquisition Collector and others (2005 SCMR 1320) initially, the award was issued on 28.11.1998 whereas the corrigendum for the compensation of orchards was issued on 04.04.1999, the land owner had questioned the issuance of award being violative to section 17(3) of the Act of 1894 but his petition was dismissed by the apex Court. Reliance is also placed on the case of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Works and others Versus Syed Muhammad Ismail Shah and others (2014 SCMR 806). Even otherwise, the mater in connection with apportionment shall be decided by the court after affording an opportunity to both the parties, hence no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents.

5.In the present matter, it is an admitted position that the petitioners did not file any objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This circumstance clearly indicates that the petitioners had no grievance with regard to the amount of compensation for the land itself as assessed by the acquiring agency and incorporated in the awards. The real grievance of the petitioners, however, pertains to the improvements existing upon the acquired property, including superstructure, cost of construction, trees, tube well and other installations, which admittedly formed part of the property belonging to the landowners. Although the assessment of these improvements was eventually carried out by the concerned authorities, the same was conducted after the announcement of the awards. Consequently, the assessed value of such improvements was not incorporated in the awards issued under Section 11 of the Act. In these circumstances, the question of apportionment or entitlement in terms of Section 30 of the Act could not arise, nor could any such dispute be transmitted by the Collector to the Referee Court, for the

simple reason that no quantified amount in respect of these improvements formed part of the award. In the absence of such inclusion, the Referee Court would lack the jurisdictional basis to examine or adjudicate the controversy, as the statutory mechanism of reference presupposes the existence of a determined amount of compensation in the award. The comments submitted by respondent No.1 themselves lend support to the petitioners’ contention. The said respondent has not only acknowledged the controversy raised in the petitions but has also candidly admitted that the assessment relating to the superstructure and other improvements of the landowners was not properly incorporated in the awards, and that the compensation was only partially assessed and reflected therein. At the same time, respondent No.1 has taken the categorical stance that the compensation determined in the awards has already been disbursed to the landowners. It was further submitted on behalf of respondent No.1 that the acquiring department, namely the Frontier Works Organization, Rawalpindi, had deposited an amount of Rs. 9.6467 billion with the acquiring agency in respect of all six awards relating to the acquisition proceedings. Respondent No.2 opposed the issuance of the writ primarily on the ground that the landowners had already received the compensation amount as determined under the awards. The mere receipt of compensation in terms of the award could constitute a ground for dismissal of the petition only if the compensation for all components of the acquired property, including improvements such as trees, superstructure, tube well and other installations, had been duly assessed and incorporated in the award itself. However, where the value of such improvements was not made part of the award, and the petitioners did not file objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acceptance of compensation relating solely to the land cannot be treated as a bar to the maintainability of the present petitions or as a ground to decline the relief sought by the petitioners. Furthermore, when the learned Assistant Advocate General

was confronted with the anomaly arising from the non- inclusion of the assessed compensation for improvements in the awards, and the consequent impediment whereby the matter could not be transmitted to the Referee Court for adjudication under the statutory framework of the Act, he was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation or legal justification for such omission on the part of the acquiring authorities.

6.Be that as it may, it is evident from the record that the petitioners, along with other similarly placed landowners, are legally entitled to receive compensation in respect of the improvements existing on the acquired land, including the superstructure, trees, tube well and other installations, the value whereof has admittedly been assessed by the Collector, albeit subsequent to the announcement of the awards. The fact that such assessment was conducted after the issuance of the awards, coupled with the admission on the part of the respondents regarding the improper or incomplete assessment at the time of announcement of the awards, necessitates an appropriate remedial measure so that the lawful entitlement of the landowners is not defeated on account of a procedural lapse attributable to the acquiring authorities. Ordinarily, it was incumbent upon the acquiring agency to ensure that the entire assessment of compensation, including the value of improvements standing on the acquired land, was duly completed and incorporated in the awards prior to their announcement under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, since the awards have already been announced and the compensation relating to the land has been disbursed, while the assessment of improvements was finalized subsequently, the landowners cannot be left remediless or deprived of the compensation lawfully due to them merely on account of the omission of the authorities to incorporate the said assessment in the awards at the relevant time.

7.In addition, for rectification of this anomaly and to secure the legitimate rights of the petitioners and other affected landowners, both the petitions are accordingly disposed of with

a direction to the Collector to issue an appropriate corrigendum to the relevant awards, incorporating therein the assessed compensation in respect of the superstructure, trees, tube well and other improvements, as reflected in the communication dated 28.10.2019. The Collector shall undertake and complete this exercise expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, if not earlier, so that the petitioners and other entitled persons may get compensation either from the collector or in case of dispute through court in consonance with section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to which they are legally entitled in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

Announced.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Haider Shah, SSS (DB) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wiqar Ahmad.