1. The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Reference Judge Mangla Dam Raising Project Mirpur dated 09.09 2011, stating therein that the land bearing Khewit Nos, 9, 10 and 243 situated at village Onah Tehsil Dadyal District Mirpur was acquired under Award No, 54/2008 dated 12.06.2008. The appellants are owners in the Khewit Nos, 10 and 243 to the extant of 637/1213 and 1/4th shares but the appellants were ignored while assessing the compensation to the extant of their shares. The compensation was assessed in the names of Respondent Nos,5 to 62, which is in violation of law and justice.
2. A Reference No, 200/2008 was preferred by the appellants under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Judge. After hearing the parties, the learned Reference Judge accepted the reference partly and declared that the appellants/ petitioners deserved to have enhancement of the compensation of their awarded land under Khewit Nos, 9 and 10 situated at village Onah Tehsil Dadyal. The learned Reference Judge enhanced the compensation and determined it as Rs,5,70,000/- per kanal for its kind Hael, Rs,5,00,000/- per kanal for its kind Maira Awal, Rs,3,85,000/- per kanal for its kind Maira Doim, Rs, 1,70,000/- per kanal for its kind Banger Qadeem, 1,40,000/- per kanal for its kind Degar Ghair Mumkin and Rs, 6,60,000/- per kanal for its kind Ghair Mumkin Aabadi, alongwith 15% as compulsory acquisition charges. But the learned.
3. Reference Judge dismissed the reference to the extant of apportionment of the compensation having not proved. Another Reference No, 76/2009, which was filed by Faisal Khan (one of the non- petitioners in Reference No, 200/2008) was also heard consolidating both the references. The Reference No, 76/2009 was filed by Faisal Khan regarding apportionment of the compensation as well. This reference was also dismissed in toto.
4. Feeling aggrieved the present appellants, preferred the instant appeal before this Court and filed a separate application regarding interim injunction. It was stated in the application for interim injunction that the learned Reference Judge has passed the judgment and decree without lawful authority. As a result, an interim order was issued to maintain status-quo prevailing at the moment subject to objections from the other side. respondents Nos, 21 to 23, 27 to 31 and 41 to 46 submitted their objections on interim injunction issued against them. It was stated by the respondents that the land owned by them which was acquired was purchased 60/65 years back. The sale-deeds, mutations and revenue record were never challenged by the appellants or their forefathers. The appellants have not impleaded all the owners of Khewit Nos, 10 and 243. The interim injunction has been obtained only to deprive the respondents from the compensation of their acquired lands. If at all, the shares of the parties regarding the acquired land are re-determined by any forum, the appellants will have a legal right to claim the compensation to the extant of those shares from the concerned persons or authorities.
5. If the interim injunction continues, the respondents shall suffer an irreparable loss.
6. Arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the parties only repeated their versions as taken in the pleadings. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the record carefully and minlitely. The record reveals that the land under Khewit Nos, 10 and 243 situated at village Onah Tehsil Dadyal was acquired in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The compensation was assessed by the Collector in the names of the appellants as well as the respondents to the extant of their shares and ownership regarding the acquired land. The record also reveals that respondents had purchased the acquired land since long but the appellants did not challenge the concerned sale-deeds, mutations and revenue entries made in the names of respondents. No such like proof has been placed on record. The compensation has been assessed and determined is in the terms of Millions and Millions. It is not just and proper to deprive of the respondents from the compensation assessed and later on, enhanced in their names. If at all, any additional right is established in favour of appellants regarding acquired land by any proper forum in future, the appellants will have a legal right to approach the concerned forum for their redressal. There is no hurdle in the way of the appellants to receive the compensation determined in their names, but the respondents have been deprived to receive the compensation in their names in presence of the interim injunction.
7. Having in view the circumstances discussed above, balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondents and if the interim injunction is not vacated, respondents shall suffer an irreparable and painful loss, so, the interim injunction issued against all the official and private respondents is hereby vacated.