Law:

Section:

USMAN ALI SHAH, C. J.‑This Full Bench has been constituted in the present cases in the following circumstances.   Some landed property was acquired by the Government for public purposes to extend the area of Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul. Notifi cations under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called "the Act") were issued by the Collector. After the usual formalities, the Collector announced his awards. The landowners were not. satisfied with the awards, therefore, they preferred objection petitions under section 18 of the Act before the Collector for enhancement of the compensation. The learned. Collector forward the objection petitions to the learned Acquisition Judge for disposal. The record shows that the learned Acquisition Judge did not decide the cases together. He first decided the objection petition in the case titled Fakhre Alam v. Central Government of Pakistan and for the purpose of these cases, it may be stated that the learned Acquisition Judge enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. one lac per Kanal to be paid to the landowner. Against the judgment of the learned Acquisition Judge the Government filed R. F. A. No. 21 of 1984 before this Court and a learned Division Bench upheld the judgment of the learned Acquisition Judge. It may be pointed out that in that case by notification, dated 14th June, 1981 under section 4 of the Act land measuring 265 Kanals 18 Marlas was acquired. This notification was followed by corrigendum, dated 29th March, 1982 by which, in partial modification of the notification, land measuring 19 Kanals 12 Marlas was added to the land measuring   265 Kanals 18 Marlas already acquired by the above notification. The learned Division Bench of this Court was confronted with the question,. namely, whether the material date for assessing the compensation to be paid for the land would be the date of corrigendum or the date of the original notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Division Bench answered in favour of the corrigendum. According to the learned Judges, actually the corrigendum was a notification under section 4 of the Act which superseded…