'RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---This judgment will dispose of following eight connected appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein:-- 1.R.F.A. No.85 of 2001.Multan Development Authority v. Manzoor Qadir and 2 others.
2R.F.A. No.86 of 2001.Multan Development Authority v. Haq Nawaz and 2 others.
3.R.F.A. No.100 of 2001Multan Development Authority v. Khuda Bakhsh and others 4.R.F.A. No.101 of 2001Multan Development Authority v. Talib Hussain and 2 others.
5.R.F.A. No.241 of 2001Multan Development Authority v. Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Shah and 2 others.
6.R.F.A. No.242 of 2001Multan Development Authority v. Aziz and 10 others.
7.R.F.A. No.243 of 2001Multan Development Authority v. Malik Haq Nawaz and 3 others.
8.R.F.A. No.263 of 2001Multan Development Authority v. Muhammad Bakhsh and 5 others
2. Precisely the facts giving rise to these appeals are that Haq Nawaz son of Muhammad Bakhsh (respondent No,1 in R. F . A . No, 86/2001); Manzoor Qadir, Zahoor Qadir, sons, Mst. Allah Wasai, widow of Ghulam Qadir (respondents Nos.1 to 3 in R.F.A. No,85/2001); Khuda Bakhsh, Ghulam Muhammad, Allah Bakhsh (through legal heirs) sons of Malik Dalil (respondent No,1 to 3 in R.F,A. No,100/2001); Talib Hussain son of Muhammad Bakhsh (respondent No,1 in R.F.A. No,101/2001; Ghulam Mohy-udDin (respondent No,1 in R.F.A. No,241/2001); Aziz, Naik Muhammad Ali Hassan. Ali Muhammad, Muhammad Hussain, Hadi Hassan sons, Mst. Shamim Akhtar, Mst. Naheed Akhtar, daughters, Mst.
Sataran Bibi, widow of Muhammad Ramzan (late) (respondents No,1 to 9 in R.F.A. No, 242/2001); Malik Haq Nawaz son of Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, Mst. Hazoor Elahi alias Hazoor Anjum,. Wife of Malik Haq Nawaz (respondents Nos.1 and 2 in R.F.A. No,243/2001) and Muhammad Bakhsh, Rahim Bakhsh alias Ghulam Hussain sons of Malik Sardar, Muhammad Hayat alias Abdullah son of Hidayatullah and Allah Ditta son of Allah Baldish (respondents Nos.1 to 4 in R.F.A. No,263/2001) had filed their respective references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement in the rate of the land acquired by the Multan Development Authority for the purpose of construction of bypass for public purpose from General Bus Stand to Khanewal Road,' which were entrusted to Senior Civil Judge, Multan; Multan Development Authority contested the same by filing written statements in the respective references; out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Senior Civil Jude framed issues and after recording evidence of both the sides, accepted the respective references enhancing the prices of the lands acquired vide separate judgments and decrees dated 20-12-2000, Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decrees, Multan Development Authority through its Director-General has filed these appeals.
2-A. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in all the appeals contended that the impugned judgments and decrees are based on surmises and conjectures because the learned Senior Civil Judge did not minutely consider the evidence available on the record; that the impugned judgments and decrees are against facts and law, as the learned Senior Civil Judge while deciding the references had wrongly considered the acquired land as commercial/residential and on that basis enhanced the amount of award, which is illegal; that the impugned judgments and decrees are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence and are liable to be set aside. Lastly, he argued that the present appeals are competently filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in view of Article 203-D of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He placed reliance on the cases of Pakistan v. Public at large PLD 1986 SC 240, Military Estate Officer v. Assistant Commissioner 1997 CLC 556, WAPDA v. Saad Ullah Khan 1999 SCM R 319, Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 18 and Muhammad Ali v. Muhammad Ramzan 2002 SCM R 426.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently argued that the acquiring agency being beneficiary of the acquired land has no right and locus standi to either file C reference against the award or appeal against the judgment arising out of the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Reliance has been placed on the cases of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission v. Land Acquisition Collector and others 2008 SCM R 1280, BP Pakistan Exploration and Production v. Sher Ali Khawaja PLD 2008 SC 400, and Defence Department of Pakistan v. Province of the Punjab and another 2006 SCM R 402.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record available as well as the case law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. It is admitted position that the land belonging to the respondent in the aforesaid appeals had been acquired by the Multan Development Authority in order to construct bypass from General Bus Stand to Khanewal Road and payments had been made to the respondents, who being dissatisfied with the said price had made references under section 18(ibid) and the learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the evidence led by both the parties proceeded to enhance the respective claims of the respondents by the impugned judgments and decrees, which have been impugned by the Multan Development Authority. It is settied principle of law that the appellant being beneficiary of the land acquired did not have any right to challenge the compensation given to the deprived owners of the land by the competent Court and that the local authority or a company on whose behalf the land is acquired by the D Collector has no right to file an appeal against a judgment arising out of the reference under section 18 of the Act. In the recent pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others 2008 SCM R 1280, it was held that acquiring agency could neither file reference against award nor appeal against decision made in reference, but could become a party in reference proceedings before Referee Court and file cross-objections for reduction of compensation awarded by the Collector. The honourable apex Court further goes on to observe that the acquiring agency could neither file independent reference nor avail remedy of constitutional petition against award except to avail such legal remedy of becoming a party and filing cross-objections in reference filed by the landowner against the award. Hence, following the dictum laid down by the honourable apex Court, we are of the view that the present appeals are not E competent. Reference can advantageously be made to the cases of Pir Khan through his legal heirs v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad and others PLD 1987 SC 485, Iftikhar Hussain Shah and others v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others 1991 SCM R 2193, Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and others v. Muhammad Iqbal and others 1992 SCM R 1245, Pakistan through Military. Estate Officer Kharian Cantt. And another v. Hayee Khan through legal heirs and 5 others PLD 1995 SC 418, Federation of Pakistan and another v. Abdul Hayee Khan and others 1996 SCM R 1389, Defence Department of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Province of Punjab and another 2006 SCM R 402 and Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission v. Land Acquisition Collector and others 2008 SCM R 1280.
6. In the present cases, the acquiring authority had been made party to the lis, which had contested the references by adducing evidence and the learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties in all the references had rightly enhanced the rate of the land acquired by the authority. After going through the record and the impugned judgment and decrees, we have not been able to find any illegality much less irregularity, misreading or non- reading of evidence or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees, which are based on valid and sound reasons.
7. Resultantly, we find no merit in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed.