The petitioners, Qamar Feroz Khan and Qamar Firdows Khali have filed this revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15/5/2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV D.I.Khan, whereby appeal of the WAPDA authorities- defendants/respondents, against the judgment and decree dated 3/11/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge-I D.I.Khan was accepted.
2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had sued the defendants for specific performance of contract, and recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- in respect of their land acquired for the construction of Wireless Station.
3. The defendants contested the same and filed written statement. The divergent pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of following issues:--
1. Whether the plaintiffs have got a cause of action and locus standi?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their words and conduct to bring the instant suit?OPD
3. Whether the defendants have refused to fix the sale consideration of the suit land with the consent of the plaintiff and pay the same to them?OPP
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for?
5. Relief.
4. The learned trial Judge on evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing pro and contra arguments decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, but on appeal by the defendants it was dismissed as mentioned above, hence this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a valid contract has been executed between the parties and the defendants are bound to perform it. According to him, the landed property measuring two kanals was handed over to the WAPDA Authorities for the construction of Wireless Station which was accordingly constructed, but the defendants, did not perform their part of contract. According to him, it was agreed that through mutual settlement, the compensation would be paid which has not been paid so far.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants/ respondents, argued that during the pendency of suit, the suit property has been acquired by the WAPDA, therefore, the present suit is not competent. He further submitted that the very agreement relied upon by the petitioners is made and signed by an unauthorized Officer which is not binding and cannot be enforced.
7. I have carefully examined the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The agreement deed is available on file as .Ex.PW.1/1. The suit property owned by the petitioners was delivered under this agreement to the defendants which was signed by the SDO of the WAPDA.
According to the relevant Rules and Law, the SDO was not authorized to execute any agreement regarding the land without the permission and authority of the concerned competent authority of the WAPDA.
9. Since the SDO was not authorized, therefore, the agreement is not legally signed. It is also on record that the property which is subject matter of the agreement has been acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and final Award No. 114 was issued on 5/4/2004. When the Award is issued, then in my opinion, there remains no locus standi to sue the defendants for specific performance of contract. It is too not legally valid. Even if the plaintiffs/petitioners are aggrieved of the non-execution of the agreement, they could sue the official/SDO of the WAPDA in his personal capacity who signed it. Moreover, at the time of execution of the contract between the SDO and the plaintiffs, the execution proceedings of the land in question were in progress. When Award is issued and land is acquired, then compensation could be considered by filing a reference.
The parties admitted that reference is pending in the Court which, in my opinion, is the proper remedy.
10.Consequently, I find no substance in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.