The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore on 29.6.1992. The contents of the plaint reveal that Mst. Inayat Begum mother of Respondents Nos, 2 to 4/defendants was the owner of land measuring 2-kanals 6-marlas in the joint Khata, Khewat No, 380, Khatooni No, 500 to the extent of 1/8 share out of the total property measuring 18-kanals 10-marlas bearing Khasra No, 1131/595, 596, 1238/597 Mauza Ajudhapur Lahore. Mst. Inayat Begum orally gifted her share in the aforesaid property measuring 2-kanals 6- marlas in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff in the year 1983 and accordingly the possession of the said property was also delivered to the petitioner-plaintiff. The contents of the plaint further reveal that the petitioner-plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land in question since 1983 and the petitioner-plaintiff is the grandson of the aforesaid Mst. Inayat Begum. The land in question alongwith the other land was taken over by the Lahore Development Authority, Respondent No, 1, for a scheme known as Muhammad Ali Johar Town, Lahore. The petitioner-plaintiff approached Respondent No 1 for the compensation of the land inquestion acquired by the LDA and for the allotment of the exempted plot in lieu of the said area gifted to the petitioner-plaintiff by the said previous owner Mst. Inayat Begum orally.
Respondent No, 1 refused to listen to the petitioner-plaintiff unless the petitioner-plaintiff secures a decree of the Civil Court to the effect that petitioner-plaintiff is the owner in place of the previous owner Mst. Inayat Begum. Mst. Inayat Begum original owner died on 31.12.1984 leaving behind Respondents Nos, 2 to 4 as sons and daughters. Respondents-Defendants Nos, 2 to 4 have left with no right or claim over the land inquestion after it was orally gifted to the petitioner-plaintiff. The petitioner filed the aforesaid'suit with the prayer that a decree be passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff to the effect that he is the owner of the land inquestion in place of the previous owners, Mst. Inayat Begum. The LDA filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint and took a stand in the written statement that Mst. Inayat Begum is one of the owners of the joint Khata measuring 8-kanals 10-marlas in Khasra No, 1131-595, 596, 1238/597 in the said mauza. The mutation of the said plot in the name of Mst. Inayat Begum was made on 15.7.1985; therefore, it was not possible for her to orally gift her share in the year 1983. Respondents Nos, 2 to 4 accepted the claim of the petitioner in their written statement, Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- 1.Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 2.Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action for the suit? OPD 3.Whether this suit lacks jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP 5.Relief.
2. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.3.1996. Respondent No, 1 being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Lahore, who accepted the same vide Judgment and decree dated 14.11.1997, hence the present revision petition .
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner subrhits that the judgments of both the Courts below are at variance. He further submits that the First Appellate Court did not advert to the reasoning of the trial Court, therefore, judgment of the First Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the judgment of the First Appellate Court is result of misreading and non- reading of the record. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner was accepted by Respondents Nos, 2 to 4. The land inquestion was admittedly acquired by the LDA in the year 1981.
The possession of the land inquestion was also taken by the LDA. Award was also announced. The LDA did not exempt any plot in favour of the original owner Mst. Inayat Begum and also did not pay compensation of the land inquestion in the name of the original owner to any of the legal heir of the original owner, therefore, the First Appellate Court did not consider this aspect of the case, therefore, judgment of the First Appellate 'Court is result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the land inquestion was acquired along with the adjacent land by the LDA in the year 1981. Possession was also taken by the LDA on 16/17 June in pursuance of notification dated 5.1.1981 issued under Section 13 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land Act. The original owner Mst. Inayat Begum had gifted the land inquestion in favour of the petitioner in the year 1983 as is evident from para 2 of the plaint, therefore, judgment of the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law. After issuing the notification under Section 13 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land Act read with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the original owner has no lawful title qua the land inquestion. He further submits that the civil suit is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy under the provisions of the Punjab Housing Act, 1973 read with the provisions of the land Acquisition Act, 1984.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal, submits that rights of the original owner qua the land inquestion remains in tact even after the acquisition of the land inquestion by the LDA therefore, judgment of the First Appellate Court is result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of parties and perused the record.
7. It is settled principle of law that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act/ Section 13 of the Punjab Housing Act, 1973 is first step towards commencement of acquisition proceeding whereby the intention of the Provincial Government to acquire the land for public purpose is notified. Impliedly warning the public at large that any transaction whatever, with regard to the land intended to be acquired would be made by the transferees at their own risk. It is also settled principle of law that once the possession of the land inquestion was taken in pursuance of the notification by the LDA, then the title of the land inquestion automatically vested to the LDA, therefore, First Appellate Court was justified to reverse the finding of the trial Court as the land inquestion was acquired admittedly in the year 1981 whereas the oral gift was made by the original owner in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff in the year 1983. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified the law laid down in LDA vs. The Land Acquisition Collector/LDA and three others (PLD 1983 Lahore 413). The question of law has already been settled by the Honorable Supreme Court in an unreported judgment dated 15.8.1988 passed in Civil Petition No, 913/83 Muhammad Khalid and another vs. The Land Acquisition Collector. The relevant observation is as follows:-- During the hearing learned counsel had to admit that the alleged purchase by the petitioners, which is the basis of their claim, was made in June, 1977, while the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in January, 1977, Not only this, a subsequent notification under Section 13 was also issued prior to the alleged purchase in facts and merits of the case are concerned, the petitioners' claim regarding exemption, could not have been allowed. Learned counsel, however, strenuously argued that Lahore Development Authority Respondent No, 3 had no locus standi to file writ petition. We do not agree with him. If the claim to the exemption made from the petitioners' side is allowed, it would seriously affect the rights and interests of the said respondent. Accordingly the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused."
The aforesaid proposition is also supported by the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in Muhammad Haleem's cage (1991 SCMR 1231). It is also settled principle of law that First Appellate Court is well within its right to reappraisal the evidence on the record and reverse the findings of the trial Court while exercising power under Section 96 of C.P.C. This Court has very limited jurisdiction to reverse the findings of the First Appellate Court while exercising power under Section 115 CPC unless and until the same is result of misreading and non-reading of the record or any violation of the principle laid down by the superior Courts. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Eduction Lahore Vs. Syed Khalid Mehmood (NLR 1985 Civil 114) and N.S. Vangatagiri Ayyangar and another Vs. The Hindus Religious Endowments Board Madras (PLD 1949 P.C. 26). The petitioner has alternative remedy under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894/Punjab Housing Act, 1973 read with provisions of Lahore Development Act, 1975. The petitioner is well within his right to avail the proper remedy under the aforesaid law before the competent authority as the law laid down in the following judgments:-- The Deputy Collector, Calicut Division vs. Aiyavu Pillay (IX Indian Cases 341 (Madras High Court) Chhedi Ram Vs. Ch. Ahmad Shafi and others (AIR 1933 Oudh 100).
In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the First Appellate Court The petitioner as mentioned above, is well within his right to avail proper remedy before the competent authority under the provisions of the aforesaid law, of-course, the competent authority, shall decide the same in accordance with law. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.