' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this civil appeal, with leave of the Court vide order dated 31-3-2010, the appellants have challenged the order dated 20-7-2009, passed by learned Single Judge in chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, in Civil Revision No,75 of 2006, whereby the said civil revision having been found misconceived was dismissed, and costs of Rs,50,000 was also imposed.
2. A brief resume of relevant facts is that on 24-12-2001, the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration, compensation and permanent injunction against the appellants and respondents Nos.3 to 7 with the following prayers:-- "(a) By a decree of the court, it may be declared that the entire action of forcibly taking possession of the land and other installations specifically described above without having any recourse to law OR without initiating proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, are illegal, mala fide, fanciful amounting to infringement of rights of plaintiff in his property.
(b) That the compensation for the lop caused to the plaintiff in the manner and form described in Annexure "H" and calculated in para 6 of the plaint which totally comes to Rs,9446970 may be awarded through a decree of the court.
(c) That costs of the suit and any other relief deemed fit and consistent in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the plaintiff."
3. Precisely, their claim was based on the averments that in the year 1993 the appellants have acquired an area of 3.05 acres of their land as detailed in paragraph 6 of the plaint, having Petrol Pump, etc. Over it, for construction/extension of National Highway. For this purpose, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 25-11-1993, which was followed by other notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 and taking over of possession of acquired land on 25-1-1994, but as yet no award has been made and no compensation has been paid to them for their unlawfully acquired land.
4. After filing of written statement by the appellants and subsequently also by respondent No,5, framing of issues, recording of evidence and due contest between the parties, the suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2 was decreed as prayed, by the trial Court on 10-5-2005. The judgment of the trial Court was challenged by the appellants by filing Civil Appeal No,51 of 2005 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Gambat on 9-6-2005, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13-4- 2006. These concurrent findings of the two Courts below were thereafter challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench vide Civil Revision No, 75 of 2006, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 20-7-2009 for the following reasons:-- "The respondent has approached the Civil Court for compensation on the ground that 3 acres 5 ghuntas land has been acquired which was commercial land and there was Petrol Pump and some trees over it. On the other hand, learned counsel has strongly refuted the claim by saying that only 1 acre 11 ghuntas land has been acquired. Keeping in view this controversy in the measurement of land, this Court remained busy in ordering different Government officials to come along with the record to show what is the factual position. The Survey Superintendent filed statement carrying therein details and it was astonishing that not only 3 acres 5 ghuntas land of the respondent has been acquired but 4 acres 5 ghuntas land was acquired while there was a Petrol Pump of Shell Company in 1995 shown in the record and according to respondent it was since 1988. It has also appeared from the statement of Survey Superintendent and record available that all the surveys from which the land has been acquired are commercial and adjacent to the road which has been constructed, entire details of the land has been given in Para No,7 of the statement. The DDO Anees Ahmed Dasti is present but it is very amazing that he is not aware of the record after 1995 while according to Survey Superintendent certain letters were sent in the August, 1995 but those are not available in the record. This shows that how the record of Revenue being maintained and rampant corruption is going on there.
' After going through the details and entire documents submitted by the Survey Superintendent, it appears that the area of 3 acres 5 ghuntas has been acquired. According to the DDO, the value of commercial land has been assessed at the rate of Rs,15 per sq. Ft. The respondent has controverted that position by submitting a document of Assistant Commissioner which shows that land belongs to the Ranipur and rate was Rs,40 per sq. Ft. The said document is taken on record.
The proceedings of both the trial Court show all procedure in respect to proper hearing and opportunity to produce the documents and evidence has been given while this has been examined after lengthy arguments that no any Illegality or Irregularity has been committed whereas contrary position has appeared as more land than the decree has been acquired. There is nothing on record which shows that more amount than the claim by the petitioner has been paid is allowed. Courts have given full consideration to this aspect also."
5. We have heard the arguments of Messrs Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants, Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Mr. Muhammad Saleem Mangrio, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.1 and 2, and carefully perused the case record made available with this appeal as well as the original record and proceedings of the lower forums, summoned by us.
6. The whole thrust of the arguments of Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants is that the three Courts below, while decreeing the suit of respondents Nos.1 and 2 as prayed, have not cared to go through the relevant record regarding the land acquisition proceedings of the disputed land of respondents Nos.1 and 2, which has resulted in gross injustice to the appellants and they have been unnecessarily burdened with the additional liability for payment of huge sum towards compensation to respondents Nos.1 and 2. He further contended that appellant No,2, for whose benefit the disputed land owned by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was acquired, had only utilized an area of one acre and five ghuntas belonging to respondents Nos.1 and 2, in the construction of national highway but this important factual aspect of the case has received no attention from the three Courts below, therefore, the concurrent findings of facts as regards the lands of respondents Nos.1 and 2 acquired by the appellants are based on misreading of evidence, thus, liable to be reversed on this account.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently argued that it is an unfortunate case where at the dint of force, the appellants have taken away most fertile roadside agricultural land with standing trees and petrol pump and owned by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, in the year 1993 under the garb of land acquisition proceedings, but till today, no compensation at all has been determined or paid to them. In this regard, he made reference of several documents available on record to show that claim of respondents Nos.1 and 2, regarding acquiring of their suit land to the extent of 3.05 acres is proved from the record of appellants and respondents Nos.4 and 5, therefore, the decree passed in their favour, being based on proper appreciation of evidence, calls for no interference at this stage.
He further argued that the scope of civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. Is limited to the extent of correcting any jurisdictional error or interfering in the appellate Court judgment only when it suffers from same illegality or material irregularity, causing serious prejudice to the case of the aggrieved party. Otherwise, the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below cannot be interfered with by the Revisional Court for the mere reason that on the basis of available evidence, another view of the matter was also possible.
8. We have carefully considered the submission made before us by the learned ASCs and with their assistance perused the material available with this appeal as well as the record and proceedings of suit file. In addition to it, we have also examined the documents placed on record by respondents Nos.1 and 2 along with their reply and the record from the office of District Officer (Revenue) Gambat/Land Acquisition Officer, who was given several opportunities in this case to appear and explain the position as regards the acquisition of land owned by respondents Nos.1 and 2 qua payment of compensation, for which they were entitled under the law. It will be seen that after full-fledged proceedings in the suit before the Court of Senior. Civil Judge Gambat, it was established from the record that the disputed land owned by respondents Nos.1 and 2 was utilized by the appellants for the construction of additional carriageway of national highway after issuing notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which contain clear reference of all the six survey numbers of the suit land with details of their respective area, but thereafter neither any land acquisition officer was appointed nor any lawful award for compensation was ever passed. Indeed, for this purpose, from time to time the matter proceeded before different forums in a causal manner, which did not materialize to the satisfaction of respondents Nos.1 and 2, thus resulted in this litigation. But one fails to understand that when a complete code of procedure forB acquiring land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was I available, why the concerned quarters at the instance of the appellants acted so causally and irresponsibly in the matter of determining and making payment of compensation to the respondents Nos.1 and 2, which served no other purpose but to complicate the issue and open a new venue for litigation. In the above circumstances, respondents Nos.1 and 2 seem to be justified in filing a suit for compensation and damages against the appellants for the loss suffered by them due to their unlawful act of utilization of an area of 3.05 acres of their land with existing trees, petrol pump etc., for construction of national highway.
9. The perusal of judgment of the Court of Senior Civil Judge Gambat dated 5-4-2005, available before us, reveals that the trial Court had framed as many as twelve issues in the suit and after affording due opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence, given its issue- wise findings on each issue discussing the relevant evidence and other record, before decreeing the suit of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the prayer made in the plaint. The appellate Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gambat in its judgment dated 31-4-2006 has again examined whole evidence adduced by the parties in the suit and on proper appreciation of evidence, dismissed the appeal of the appellant for cogent and valid reasons. The learned single Judge in the High Court in his impugned judgment dated 2Q-7-2009, operative part whereof has been reproduced above, has further taken care of all the contentions raised by the appellant as regards the actual area of the, lands of respondents Nos.1 and 2, acquired, for the benefit of appellant No,2 and based on the material made available before him, upheld the findings of the two Courts below against the appellants. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants, despite his lengthy submissions, has not been able to show any material shortcoming in the findings of the three Courts below in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2, which may call for any interference in such findings at this stage. From the record of the case we have noticed that the claim of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that their 3.05 acres of land was utilized/acquired by the appellants for construction/widening of National Highway is fully proved, so also the fact that the compensation awarded in this regard by the three Courts is also appropriate.
10. 'This being the position, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.