' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Brief facts out of which the present appeal has arisen are that the land of the appellant measuring 8 Kanals and 5 Marlas, situated in Mauza Chiniot was acquired by the respondent for construction of Court Room etc. Of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chiniot vide notification dated 24-4-1988, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.
Possession of the acquired land was secured from the appellant on 19-9-1990. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 2-9-1992. Appellant being aggrieved filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, on 10-7-1995, wherein the compensation awarded by the Collector to the appellant was enhanced. Appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court awarded compensation to the appellant of land measuring 11 Marlas treating the same as commercial site whereas the trial Court has granted compensation to the appellant of the remaining land measuring 7 Kanals and 14 Marlas, treating the same residential site. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not discussed the evidence in the impugned judgment and did not give any reason for not treating the whole land of the appellant as commercial. He further submits that in view of the evidence on record whole land of the appellant is situated in the commercial area, but the learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the record, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. The ledrned Additional Advocate-General submits that the appellant secured decree ex parte against the respondent and. The trial Court has discussed the evidence on record in its true perspective, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record ourselves. The impugned judgment does not contain any reason qua the classification of the land of the appellant, i.e. Commercial as well as residential. It is settled principle of law that the Courts are duty bound to decide the controversy between the parties after applying their independent mind as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in. Mollah Ejahar Ali v.
Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC 173. The trial Court has decided the reference without application of mind and without properly appreciating the evidence on record, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree, is liable to be set aside. Even the public functionaries are duty bound to decide the cases of the citizens with reasons in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e- Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCM R 2268. It is settled principle of law that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan is binding on each and every organ of the State.
In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge concerned, on 14-6-2004, who is directed to record fresh evidence of the parties and decide the reference, afresh, within six months, even if he has to undertake day to day proceedings in the case. Parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court so that the matter may be decided within the prescribed period. In case any of the parties/counsel fail to co-operate with the trial Court then the trial Court is directed to invoke the penal provisions against the said party. Office is directed to hand over copy of this judgment to the learned Law Officer for onward transmission to the District Revenue Officer concerned so that he may defend the case properly. He is further directed to send copy of this judgment to the District Co-ordination Officer concerned, who is directed to give directions to the concerned quarters to defend the case properly. It is pertinent to mention here that in the, earlier round of litigation ex parte decree was passed by the trial Court .As the respondent/defendant failed to appear and defend the case. Copy of this judgment may also be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Province, who is directed to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned to defend the cases properly so that cases may be decided on merits.