' This revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order/judgment and decree dated 8.11.2012, passed by learned Additional District Judge-XI, Peshawar whereby the order/judgment & decree dated 21.10.2012, of the Civil Judge-V, Peshawar was maintained and resultantly the appeal of petitioners was dismissed and suit of petitioners dismissed.
' Arguments heard record perused.
2. A perusal of record reveals that petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of the suit property by operation of law (Section 5 of Tenancy Act, 1887) and based their claim in the light of verdict of august Supreme Court reported in PLD 1991 SC 760, and are entitled to the amount of compensation with payment of interest from the date of award w,e,f, 9.8.2000 till execution of decree in respect of property acquired for the construction of Islamabad and Peshawar Motorway, vide Award No, 73 dated 9.8.2000.
' It is evident from the revenue record that the plaintiffs are shown as occupancy tenants from the time of their forefathers however they remained unable to seek declaration as per the mechanism provided under NWFP Tenancy Act, 1950. They were admittedly recorded occupancy tenants under Section 5 of the Tenancy Act, 1887, however provisions of Act ibid were repealed and certain provisions were given protection in terms of Section 3 of the Act ibid r/w Section 4, of occupancy tenants were given right to become owners of the property within prescribed parameters given therein and a cut date was given for seeking declaration for the purpose, however the same is lacking in the instant case. A person recorded as occupancy tenant would not automatically become owner nor could claim ownership unless declared as such by the competent Court.
Though the provisions of Section 4 were later on declared to be against injunction of Islam by Shariat Bench of Supreme Court with a target date given therein as 23rd March, 1990 for the amendment of Act ibid however persons dealt with prior to that date were given protection. The precedent relied upon by the plaintiffs in his plaint has no nexus with the instant matter as facts of the case are different. As the plaintiffs failed to make any serious efforts to incorporate himself in the revenue record as owners through declaration by Court therefore they were rightly refused for payment of compensation by the authority/respondents. As compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can only be paid to the owners and occupancy tenants are in , no eventuality entitled to get compensation. Section 83 of NWFP Tenancy Act, also deals with the matter with regard to limitation regarding filing of suit for declaration of their claim and plaintiffs to this effect have also failed to seek remedy within the prescribed period of three years. The plea of petitioners/plaintiffs to the effect that they are owners being in possession of the property since forefathers on the ground that they have never made any payment to the original owners, is misplaced, for the reason that mere possession for a long term would not entitle any person to become owner of the property with special reference to the fact that by operation of law the occupancy tenants whether on payment or free of cost were given chance to get declaration as owners but the plaintiffs failed to comply with the relevant provision of law and as such could not be given benefit of his own laxities, as it would amount to illegality. The occupancy tenants after promulgation of Tenancy Act, 1950 could not claim to be occupancy tenants nor could claim the ownership if not complied with the relevant provisions of law of the Act ibid and could not be protected nor could claim ownership after the cut date. They were ceased to be occupancy tenants after the cut date and are not entitled to any benefit due to their lukewarm attitude towards compliance of relevant provisions of law. They ceased to be occupancy tenants and their possession over the property shall not be considered as legal one in any capacity. Apart from this the provision of Section 4 of the Act ibid have already been declared against injunction of Islam by Shariat Bench of Supreme Court and after the cut date given therein, are no more entitled to claim ownership and as such the compensation in respect of disputed land could not be claimed by the petitioners.
3. Quite apart from this, Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides a mechanism for determination of dispute regarding enhancement of compensation, measurement of land and grant of declaration of rights. The petitioners have sought compensation in respect of land under reference from a civil Court which is not permissible under the law as the Land Acquisition Act, provides the remedy with regard to declaration to the rights of owners/objectors, if any, and the petitioners could resort for remedy before proper forum.
4. The Courts below have passed the impugned orders with reasons. There is no jurisdictional or legal error in the impugned judgments and the Courts below have neither misdirected nor misled the evidence available on file and the findings arrived are entirely in consonance with law and facts of the case, warrants no interference.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition alongwith being devoid of merit are dismissed.
(R.A) .