1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.---By this common order, I propose to dispose of Misc: Appeals Nos.4,5,6 and 7 of 2007, which have been filed against the order dated 31-7-2007 passed by learned District Judge, Sanghar, whereby an application under Order IX, Rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. Filed by the appellant was dismissed, as question of law and facts involved in these appeals are common.
2. ' The facts leading rise to the present Misc: appeals in brief, are that the appellant acquired the land bearing S. Nos. 459/4, 465/1&2 admeasuring 9-9- acres situated in Deh and Taluka Tando Adam for construction of a small industry by Government of Sindh. The necessary notification under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act were published in official Gazette and after promulgation of the Notification in the Government Gazette, the possession of land in question was taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer and the award was passed by the appellant. The respondent received the compensation amount of award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the appellant, who remitted the same to the learned District Judge, Sanghar who entrusted the same to the learned Additional District Judge, Shahadpur. The learned Additional District Judge, Shahadpur proceeded with the reference and finally decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20th April 1992. The appellant being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, preferred appeal before this Court, which was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 27-9- 1999. The respondent being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by this Court, preferred C.P.L.A.s Nos.24-K, 82-K, 114-K and 115-K of 2000 before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, which were allowed vide judgment passed by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on 8-8-2000 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law preferably within a period of six months. After remand of the matter, the learned trial Court served notice on the appellant, who did not respond the same, therefore, the matter was proceeded ex parte against the appellant and after filing affidavit in ex parte proof, the suit was again decreed by the learned District Judge, Sanghar vide judgment and decree dated 3- 5-2006. After passing of the judgment and decree in his favour, the respondent filed execution proceedings and notice has been served upon the appellant, who filed application under Order IX, rule 13 R/w section 151, C.P.C. For setting aside the judgment and decree. The said application was contested by the respondent and the learned District Judge, Sanghar after hearing of learned counsel for the parties was pleased to dismiss the application on 31-7-2007. The appellant being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the result of his application, has preferred the present Misc: Appeal.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Yousif Leghari, learned Advocate-General Sindh for appellants and Messrs Mian Muhammad Afzal Arain and Mr. Nusrat Mehmood Gill, learned counsel for respondents.
4. ' The learned Advocate-General Sindh for appellants vehemently contended that the appellant was not served with the notice properly by the learned lower Court in view of Order V rule 20, C.P.C.
5. And the judgment and decree has been passed without affording an opportunity to the appellant to prove its case before the learned lower Court. According to him, the learned trial Court also committed the illegality while decreeing the suit and awarding compensation under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been repealed in view of the direction of Honourable Federal Shariat Court. According to him, the appellant was condemned unheard and the order passed by learned lower Court as well as additional District Judge be set aside.
6. ' Mian Muhammad Afzal Arain, learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the contention raised by learned Advocate-General Sindh for appellant and has contended that the proper service was effected on the appellant and inspite of service on him he wilfully and deliberately chose to remain absent, therefore, there was no option with the Court but to proceed with the matter ex parte and the suit has been rightly decreed on the basis of evidence brought on record by the respondent and the appellant filed an application under Order IX, rule 13, C.P.C. For setting aside of order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer which was preferred after expiry of limitation period, therefore, the order passed by learned lower Court may not be interfered by this Court.
7. ' Mr. Nusrat Mehmood Gill, learned counsel for respondents in Misc: Appeals Nos.4, 6 and 7 of 2007 has adopted the same arguments as advanced by Mr. Mian Muhammad Afzal Arain, learned counsel.
8. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before me as well as relevant law on the subject.
9. ' Admittedly, the land in question has been acquired by the appellant for establishment of a small Industry and the request of the Government was allowed after issuance of Notification under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and after completion of all the formalities, taken over the possession of the property in question, and, in case, the Government land is encroached and party is residing over the land in un-interrupted and continuous possession over the property in question the award was passed by the appellant, which was accepted conditionally by the respondent by receiving the amount of compensation under protest and filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which ultimately was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Shandadpur, who decreed it and the said judgment passed by Additional District Judge was finally set aside by this Court and the matter was again remanded to the District Court and the learned District Judge on remand of the matter after service of notice on the appellant again decreed the suit. All these circumstances show that the land in question was acquired by the appellant for the benefit of the Goverment for establishment of a small Industry and when the reference had come before the referee Court, it was incumbent upon the referee Court to serve the notice on all the interested parties, but the said reference in view of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act requires the service of notice on the interested parties. The section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act is usefully quoted herein below for the sake of convenience:-- "(20) Service of notice. The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons namely:---
(a) the applicant;
(b) all persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and
(c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector."
10. A perusal of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act shows that Referee Court is under obligation to serve notice upon all the persons interested' in the objection except those who have accepted the award unconditionally and the words "interested persons" used in section 20, ibid, is of much significance which also includes persons for whose benefit the land has been acquired. Here in the present case, the land has been acquired by the Government of Sindh for establishment of a small Industry, as such, the notice as required under section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act is obligatory on the part of the lower Court to be served in accordance with law on the Government being interested party and, in case, the notice has not been served, it will be deemed that the provisions of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act has been violated, which are mandatory in nature and violation of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act tantamounts to denial of the right of hearing to the interested persons which is not the spirit of law.
11. I have also gone through the R and Ps available before me and no where it is evident that notice under section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act has been served on all the interested parties in reference, before passing the judgment decree by the learned trial Court. When confronted with the aforesaid legal proposition to the learned counsel for the respondent, he candidly admitted the violation of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act and has nothing to say except that the matter be remanded to the trial Court with specific direction to adjudicate upon the matter within shortest possible time, as the matter has already been lingered on, to which learned Advocate-General Sindh did not oppose the offer made by the learned counsel for the respondent.
12. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court which patently suffers from illegality, are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Judge, Sanghar for fresh adjudication of the reference on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of R and Ps after service of notice under section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act on all the interested persons. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.