1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.---The dispute in the present proceedings has arisen from the suit filed by the private respondents with regard to three Survey numbers i,e, 146, 147 and 267. The suit was filed against the Civil Aviation Authority on the ground that for Nawabshah Airport, this land was occupied without any, proper legal acquisition and without payment of compensation. In the written statement, it has been claimed that the land was required for the Nawabshah Airport in 1965 and therefore a requisition was made and thereafter land acquired through the Province of Sindh through its Land Acquisition Officer who passed the Award on 12-4-1971 and all these three survey numbers have been mentioned in the Award for which compensation has also been paid to the persons who were the owners of these survey numbers. Subsequently, the mutation of the acquired land including these three disputed survey numbers was also made in the Revenue Records in the name of Aviation Department.
2. ' Counsel for private respondents on, the other hand contended that though Award was passed in 1971 but Award would be valid if it is based on notification of the government under the Land Acquisition Officer and then there has to be payment of compensation to the owners and in absence of requisite notification and proof of compensation the Award was meaningless and is to be regarded as of no legal consequence: He further contended that there is Form-VII entry with regard to S.No,146 in favour of private respondents and with regard to the ownership of S.No,147 and 267 there is a Pass Book entry therefore, the entire process of the acquisition was violative of law and both the Courts rightly held that no compensation has been paid and therefore, private respondents were entitled to the relief granted by the Courts below.
3. ' Learned Additional A.G contended that since agency of the acquisition was Province of Sindh which issued notification and acquired the land through Land Acquisition Officer but the Province of Sindh was not made a party to the suit. He referred to Article 174 of Constitution and relied upon the case reported in 2010 SCM R 115. He further contended that in one of document i,e, Form-VII there is mention of S.No,146, only which survey number, is not mentioned in the Pass Book and in the Pass Book there is mentioned S.Nos.147 and 267 but there is no mention of S.No,146. He therefore; contended that the Revenue record produced by the private respondents was highly doubtful.
4. It is an admitted position that Award was passed in 1971 which mentions all these three survey numbers to have been acquired and thereafter in the Revenue Record these three survey numbers were mutated in the name of Aviation Department. The Revenue Record produced by the private respondents shows discrepancies as all the three survey numbers are neither collectively mentioned in Form-VII produced by private respondents nor in the Pass Book. Furthermore, the allegation of dispossession during pendency of the suit by Civil Aviation Authority is only of a general nature IInd the manner in which dispossession was carried out is not stated. It clearly emerges that plea of dispossession was taken in order to avoid the legal effect of statute of limitation. With regard to the plea that no compensation was paid, suffice to state that the notification was to be published by the Province of Sindh and so also the compensation was to be paid through Province of Sindh. The burden to show issuance of notification and payment of compensation was upon the Province of Sindh which was not made a party to the suit. However, it is reflected in the Award that the compensation has been paid for the three disputed survey numbers. All this clearly shows that the land was taken for the present Nawabshah Airport way back in 1965 and Award was passed in 1971 and payment made to the owners. In case Award was not supported by any notification then the legal proceedings ought to have, been taken at the appropriate time but after more than 19 years of acquisition. The claim on the face of it has become barred by time. In view of the fact that the Province of Sindh was not made a party in the suit and the documents relied upon by the private respondents were highly doubtful both the Courts below committed error in holding that the private respondents have established their case in the suit.
5. ' In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the revision application is allowed. In consequence of decision in this Revision Application No,92 of 2006, the two connected Revision Applications No,201 of 2010 and 201 of 2011 both arising from execution proceedings of the same decree have become infructuous and disposed of accordingly.