HYDERABAD, Nov 7: The Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit bench, on Thursday directed the deputy director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, to appear before the court on Nov 11 in connection with land acquisition matters.
The court issue the order to seek comments of the ACE official in the matters.
The additional AG, Sindh, Masood A. Noorani, sought time to call the deputy director on the date mentioned.
The order was passed on two separate constitutional petitions, filed by Mohammad Bux and Abdul Hakim, who claimed their 32-acre and 30-acre lands respectively were acquired by the deputy district officer and Revenue and Land Acquisition Officer but he had not passed the award.
Advocate Ghulam Rasool Qureshi represented the petitioners.
Mohammad Bux said that his land survey No69/28, measuring 32 acres, along with other Khatedars’ lands was acquired for defence purposes and Sindh government gazette notification was issued on January 17, 2002 and added that possession of land was immediately taken over after notification under the Land Acquisition Act.
He said that the Land Acquisition Officer had not passed the award to date despite lapsing of more than a year.
He said that he had been deprived of benefits of lands since March 2002 as nothing was paid to him as compensation of the land without any lawful cause though the respondent Land Acquisition Officer was under statutory duty under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to pass the award within six months of publication of the notification.
He stated that the respondent was bound to pay compensation for the lands to the petitioner before taking over possession of his lands from him, especially when beneficiary of the land deposited an amount for payment to land owners.
Another petitioner, Abdul Hakim said that his 30 acres of land acquired along with other land owners for defence purpose on January 17, 2002 and gazette notification was issued.
He further said that possession was also taken over under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act but the Land Acquisition Officer had not passed the award although he was duty bound to do so.
The petitioners counsel argued that exercise of powers as possessed by respondents as public functionaries could not be refused arbitrarily and in action on their part amounted to refusal of exercise of powers by them.
He pleaded that by not announcing the award for more than a year, the respondent Land Acquisition Officer had failed to perform his statutory duty and the respondents were not permitted under law to take over possession of land before making payment of compensation to land owners.
He prayed the court to direct the respondents to deposit the amount of compensation.