' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---This First Appeal is directed against the order, dated 22-7-2002 passed by the learned. Senior Civil Judge/Executing Court, Rajanpur.
2. The facts in brief are that the Province of Punjab acquired the land measuring 81-kanals, 4- marlas situated in Square No,129 within the limits of Municipal Committee, Rajanpur for the task of construction of Government Girls Inter College for Women in Rajanpur. After issuance of Notification of No,485/DRA, dated 18-4-1984 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of material produced by the parties, fixed the market price/value of the land-in-question Rs,400 per marla. The owners of the land claimed references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act wherein it was alleged that the value of the acquired land was not less than Rs,20,000 per marla. The Deputy Collector sent the references to the Senior Civil Judge, Rajanpur which were contested by filing written statements, wherein it was maintained that the land was not situated within the limits of Municipal Committee, Rajanpur and that it was barren agricultural land and was properly valued by the Land Acquisition Collector. After recording oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Referee Court/SCJ found that the Land Acquisition Collector has properly fixed the compensation of the acquired land vide Award rendered by Senior Civil Judge Rajanpur/Reference Court, dated 31-7-1993. The appellants did not challenge the said decision, however, against the same, Syed Masih-ul-Islam filed R.F.A. No,76/93 titled, "Syed Masihul- Islam v. LAC, Rajanpur" in this Court which stood accepted vide order, dated 11-10-1995, (also reported 1996 CLC 781) reproduced hereunder:- "As a result of the afore-going discussion we have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector is untenable and is accordingly set aside. The appellants are adjudged to be entitled to the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs,3630.23 per marla for 64 kanals 19.20 marlas in proportionate to their entitlement. The appellants shall be further entitled to 15% compulsory acquisition charges along with benefits under sections 28 and 34 of the Act."
' The Land Acquisition Collector acquired 81-kanals 4-marlas of land, outof which 24-kanals of land was owned by the appellants. The appellants after passing of the aforesaid order by this Court, moved an execution application for implementation/payment of the compensation which stood dismissed vide order, dated 22-7-2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Executing Court, Rajanpur, on the ground that the appellants had not challenged the order before this Court, therefore, they had no locus standi to file the execution petition.
3. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the award-inquestion was set aside wholly and not partially in R.F.A. No,76/1993; that the tenor of the judgment passed in the said appeal suggests by all means that 81-kanals 4-marlas land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector and after deduction of 20% area from the total area, it was held that the compensation of the acquired land will be given @ Rs,3630.23 per marla for 64-kanals 19.20 marlas in proportionate to the entitlement. This being so, 24-kanals of the land acquired was the part of the acquired land measuring 64-kanals 19.20-marlas. Although; the appellants had not filed an appeal but the appeal filed by Masih-ul-Islam had taken into consideration the acquired land of the appellants as well, as such, they are also entitled to the compensation @ Rs,3630.23 per marla.
4. The appellants moved an application for execution of the judgment and decree, dated 11-10-1995 passed by this Court, for the payment of compensation of the acquired land in accordance with the said judgment before the Senior Civil Judge, Rajanpur who dismissed the execution petition of the appellants' on the ground of it being incompetent and also due to the reason that the appellants had not challenged the order before this Court as well as before the apex Court, they had no locus standi to file the execution petition. Through the instant F.A.O. The appellant call-in- question the said order.
5. Arguments heard. The order, dated 31-7-1993 passed in R.F.A. No,76 of 1993 has been perused.
6. Admittedly, this Court had taken into consideration total area of the acquired land i,e, 81-kanals 4-marlas against which the award had been passed and as per judgment rendered in R.F.A. No,76 of 1993, this Court held after deducting 20% area from the total area, that the compensation of the acquired land will be given @ Rs,3630.23 per marla for 64-marlas in proportionate to the entitlement. The land owned by the appellants which was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, is a part of the total acquired land, hence, according to the judgment, dated 11-10-1995 of this Court, the appellants are also entitled for the compensation determined by this Court in the said R.F.A. No,76/93 @ Rs,3630.23 per marla. A decree is binding on the parties and anaggrieved party must seek remedy against it but in view of the Order XLI, Rule 33, C.P.C. It is stipulated as under:-- "The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the, appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favor of all or any of the respondent or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection."
' The appellate Court is empowered, in the interest of justice, to allow appropriate relief to non- appealing parties where the appeal is with regard to whole of the decree and very wide discretion is given to the appellate Court in terms of the order XLI rule 33, C.P.C. In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, as propounded by the august Supreme Court in PLD 1993 Supreme Court 418 (North-West Frontier Province Government, Peshawar through Collector, Abbottabad and another). It has further been held in 1992 CLC 1775 (Muhammad Rafiq Khan v. Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur, and another) that, the appellant Court has ample power under provision of Order XLI, rule 33, C.P.C. To grant relief to party who had neither filed appeal nor cross- objection.
7. In the above perspective this appeal is allowed, the order, dated 22-7-2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/executing Court, Rajanpur is set-aside. The appellants are held entitled to recover the compensation to the extent of their entitlement as propounded in the judgment, dated 11-10-1995 passed by this Court. No order as to costs.