Muhanunad Azam Khan, C.J.--Identical Question of law regarding competency of appeals filed by the Water & Power Development Authority (WAPDA) through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), in the High Court and the appeals apart from aforementioned functionaries, through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal), WAPDA in this Court, is involved in all the appeals; therefore, these are being disposed of through this single consolidated judgment.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of all the appeals are that on the requisition of WAPDA though Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), Mangla Dam Raising Project, the Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam acquired the land of the land-owners through different awards for the public purpose i.e. Mangla Dam Raising Project, a project of WAPDA.
Dissatisfied from the compensation awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, the land-owners filed reference applications before the Collector. The Collector referred the matter to the Reference Judge, Mangla Dam Raising Project for determination of the compensation. In all the appeals, Reference Judge accepted the references and enhanced the compensation amount through separate judgments and decrees in all the cases. Dissatisfied, WAPDA challenged the decrees of the Reference Judge through different appeals in the High Court.
The appeals were filed by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), Mangla Dam Raising Project. In some cases the landowners also filed appeals from the judgment and decree of the Reference Judge in the High Court and appeals filed by WAPDA and the land-owners were heard together. The appeals filed by WAPDA were dismissed by the High Court and some of the appeals filed by the land-owners were accepted by the High Court and the amount of compensation was enhanced. WAPDA filed some petitions for leave to appeal/appeals through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), Mangla Dam Raising Project, and some appeals were filed through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal), WAPDA. During pendency of petitions for leave to appeal, counsel for WAPDA filed application for, adjournment on the ground that this Court in a judgment passed, in the case titled WAPDA & others us. Raja Maroof & others (Civil Appeal No. 49/2013, decided on 7/4/2014), observed that Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) have no authority to file appeals on behalf of WAPDA in the High Court and this Court therefore, WAPDA has started process of ratification of acts done by the functionaries. During this period WAPDA started filing appeals through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) under the authority of Resolution No. 441/1981. At the time of arguments, the question of competency of appeals filed by WAPDA in the High Court through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) and also in this Court and competency of appeals/petitions for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal), WAPDA, came into the consideration. Leave was granted to consider the question of competency of petitions for leave to appeal/appeals.
3. M/s. Haji Ch. Munsaf Dad, Haji Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Ch. Liaquat Afzal and Javed Najmussaqib, advocates, who represent WAPDA in the above-titled appeals, argued on behalf of WAPDA and submitted that the appeals through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer Mangla Dam Raising Project have competently been filed from the judgments and decrees of the Reference Judge Mangla Dam Raising Project Mirpur.
4. Haji Ch. Munsaf Dad, advocate, counsel for WAPDA in Civil Appeals Nos. 136/2013 and 280/2014, while arguing on competency of appeals raised the plea that the objection regarding competency of appeals has not been taken in the High Court and in the concise statement, therefore, the respondents cannot be allowed to argue that the appeals of WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) in the High Court and in this Court are not competent. The learned counsel contended that this Court in the cases reported as Dr. Kh. Mushtaq Ahmed vs. Azad Government & 3 others [1999 SCR 77J, Deputy Collector Excise & Taxation & others vs. Abdul Hameed & others [1993 SCR 363] and Dr. Muhammad Sarwar Ahmed vs. University of AJ&K & 6 others [1998 SCR 350] has observed that if a point is not taken in the memorandum of appeal or the concise statement, it cannot be allowed to be raised at the time of arguments. The learned counsel submitted that in the reference application, the applicants have not arrayed WAPDA as party through Chairman. They have arrayed WAPDA as party through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) and they have righty defended the references and filed appeals from the judgments and decrees of the Reference Judge. The learned counsel while relying upon Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, argued that the Collector Land Acquisition has to determine the interested party. It is his duty to submit a report with the Reference Judge as to who is the interested party. The Reference Judge has declared the Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) as interested parties, therefore they have a right to defend the reference applications and file appeals. While relying Upon Resolution No. 441/1981, passed on 3/3/1981, the learned counsel submitted that WAPDA has authorized Legal Advisor/Director (Legal), WAPDA, to file appeals on its behalf and engage a counsel for the said purpose. The learned counsel submitted that through another resolution passed by WAPDA on 29/7/1986, Bearing No. 527/1986, apart from others, the Chief Engineer/Project Directors and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) have been authorized to engage counsel on, their behalf in any Court. The learned counsel referred to another Resolution No. 749/1997 passed by WAPDA on 1/7/1-997. Through the said resolution, the authority delegated its powers apart from others to the Chief Engineer/Project Directors; Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) and Directors of Circles etc vested in it under Section 3(2) of the Water & Power Development Authority Act, 1958, to be referred hereinafter as WAPDA Act) for filing and defending suits, other proceedings, singing and verifying the plaints on behalf of WAPDA and they are further authorized to engage counsel on behalf of WAPDA. The resolutions of 1986 and 1997 empower the Chief Engineers/Project Directors and Superintending Engineers (Resettlement) to act on behalf of WAPDA for filing, defending suits against WAPDA, filing appeals in the High Court and in this Court as well. The appeals in the High Court were competently filed by the, said functionaries because WAPDA was impleaded as party through them and under the provisions of Order XLI, CPC, a party, who is aggrieved from a judgment or decree, has a right to maintain appeal in the High Court. The learned counsel relied upon the case reported as Khadim Hussain vs. Muhammad Fazil & 4 others [1999 YLR 1529].
' In the case reported as Khadim Hussain vs. Muhammad Fazil [1999 YLR 1529], the question before this Court was of ratification of the act of agent by the principal. It was observed by this Court that the matter of ratification of an act of the agent of a principal is between the two i.e. Principal and agent. The rectifications could be made even after expiry of the period of limitation for filing a suit or the appeal. The same shall operate retrospectively. No such situation exists in the case as no acts have been validated by WAPDA.
5. Haji Ch. Muhammad Afzal, advocate, submitted that WAPDA is a company as laid down in Section 3 of the WAPDA Act, which is entitled to acquire property and sue and be sued by its name.
Under Section 20 of the WAPDA Act, authority can delegate its powers through resolutions to the functionaries subject to the conditions. WAPDA has delegated its powers through Resolution No. 441/1981, passed on 3/3/1981, to the Legal Advisor/Director (Legal), WAPDA, for filing suits and appeals, therefore, the appeals filed by WAPDA through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal), WAPDA, in this Court have competently been filed. The learned counsel submitted that WAPDA Act is not adapted in Azad Jammu & Kashmir. It is a foreign company and under Order III, Rule 2(b), CPC, the Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) are agents of WAPDA and agent has a right to defend the suits and file appeals on behalf of the principal. In their capacity as agent of a foreign company, the Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) have competently filed appeals from the judgment of Reference Judge in the High Court. The learned counsel also submitted that WAPDA was arrayed as party in the line of respondents in the reference applications through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement). Under Order XLI, Rule 1, CPC, a person who is a party in the lower forum, has a right to file appeal under law, therefore, the appeals filed by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) have competently been filed in the High Court and in this Court. The learned counsel later on, after the arguments ' in the case were concluded, produced a written note to the effect that the matter to be considered for doing complete justice on the ground that this Court in Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan's case [PLD 1990 SC (AJ&K) 23], has observed that when the matter comes before the Supreme Court for consideration, the Supreme Court even without valid appeal, has power to decide the issue involved in exercise of inherent powers. The question of compensation has been raised before this Court, therefore, instead of deciding the appeals on technical ground, these should be decided on merits.
6. Ch. Liaquat Afzal, advocate, counsel for the WAPDA in Civil Appeals No. 77/13, 165/14, 196/14, 281/14, 283/14, 287/14, 288/14, 292/14, 294/14, 298/14, 307/14, 308/14 and 338/14, submitted that WAPDA is a foreign company and under Order III, Rule 2(b), CPC, the agents of the foreign company have a right to defend and can file appeals on its behalf. He submitted that WAPDA was made party before the Reference Judge through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), therefore, they had every right to file appeal, against the judgment and decree of the Reference Judge as agent of the company. The appeals filed through these functionaries as agent are competent.
7. Mr. Javed Najmussaqib, advocate, counsel for WAPDA in Civil Appeals Nos. 150/13, 297/14, 58/14, 300/14, 304/14, 310/14, 311/14, 313/14 and 316/14, argued that WAPDA was arrayed as party in reference applications through Chief Engineer, therefore, Chief Engineer was competent to defend.
WAPDA before the Reference Judge and also for filing appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court.
8. Sardar Muhammad Raziq Khan, advocate, counsel for WAPDA in Civil Appeal No. 296/14, argued that in the reference application WAPDA was arrayed as party through Chief Engineer, Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement). Since WAPDA was impleaded as party through them, therefore, they had a right to defend WAPDA in the Court of Reference Judge and also had a right under Order XLI, Rule 1, CPC, to file appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court.
When a decree is passed against a party and the party is aggrieved from the judgment and decree, the party has a right to file appeal in the appellate Court. The appeal in the High Court and this Court was competently filed through the Chief Engineer.
9. While controverting the arguments of the counsel for WAPDA, Mr. Masood A. Sheikh, advocate, counsel for respondents in Civil Appeal No. 288/14, argued that the appeal before the High Court and in this Court through Chief Engineer, Project Director or Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) has been filed without authority as such is not competent. He submitted that the Collector Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, has acquired the land for WAPDA for Mangla Dam Raising Project in the name of the Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. In all the awards, Collector Land Acquisition has mentioned that Chief Engineer/Project Director Mangla Dam Raising Project has made a requisition for acquisition of the said land and the land was acquired by the Collector on their requisition for the purpose of Mangla Dam Raising Project; that's why all the land owners, who filed references, moved applications before the Collector Mangla Dam Raising Project for referring the matter to the Reference Judge, mostly under Section 18 for enhancement of the compensation. The learned counsel referred to Section 19(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and argued that the Collector Land Acquisition has to determine as to who is the interested party. In a reference the first interested person is a land owner whose land has been acquired and who has moved the Collector Land Acquisition for referring the matter to the Reference Judge. It is nut the duty of the land owner to array any person as party in the line of respondents. It is the Collector who has to determine under Section 19(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that as to who is the person interested. Since the land was acquired, for the benefit of WAPDA for Mangla Dam Raising Project through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), the Collector determined that these are interested persons. The Chief Engineer/ Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) cannot be termed as persons interested in the light of provision contained in Section 19(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because it is the WAPDA who is interested person. The learned counsel referred to Sections 3 and 20 of the WAPDA Act and argued that WAPDA is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 which can sue and be sued by the said name and under Section 20 of the WAPDA Act, WAPDA may delegate its powers under Section 3(2) of WAPDA Act to any of its officers. It is the duty of Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) that whenever a suit or reference is filed against WAPDA through them, they shall arrange for prosecution of the same and whenever a decree is passed against WAPDA, they are also duty bound to inform WAPDA for making arrangements for filing the appeal. The learned counsel argued that while exercising powers under Section 20 of the WAPDA Act, WAPDA has delegated its powers through Resolution No. 527/1986, passed on 29/7/1986, apart from others to Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers (Resettlement) and Project Directors for filing, defending the suits and other proceedings, signing and verifying plaints, written statements and other proceedings, applications, appeals and revisions in the trial Court and the Courts of District & Sessions Judge in the cases arising out of their respective regions. The resolution restricts the power of these functionaries and provides that the cases involving the amount exceeding Rs. 100,000/- shall be first referred to the Law Division, WAPDA, for instructions. They cannot defend or file such cases by themselves. The learned counsel while referring to Resolution No. 749/1997, dated 1/7/1997 argued that the same powers which were delegated to these functionaries through resolution dated 27/9/1986, have again been delegated and they have been authorized and empowered to institute, defend suits up to the value of Rs,500,000/- instead of Rs. 100,000/-. It was the duty of these functionaries under this resolution to immediately bring into the notice of the Authority that the reference having involved the amount more than Rs.500,000/- has been filed and the Authority shall arrange for defending the same and when a decree was passed against WAPDA, they shall also have to inform WAPDA for making arrangements for filing appeals, instead they themselves defended the references and filed appeals for which they were not authorized. They filed appeals in the High Court and the Supreme Court without authority. The learned counsel argued that all the three functionaries were holder of power of attorney and it is a celebrated principle of law that a power of attorney must be construed strictly. The learned counsel referred to the cases reported as Muhammad Basharat vs. Mrs. Naseem Begum & 3 others [2008 SCR 478], Manzoor Begum vs. Haji Fazal Ellahi [2012 SCR 70], Ch. Muhammad Hanif (deceased) Rep. By L Rs. Vs. Mst. Zainab Bibi & 12 others [2013 SCR 413] and a recent judgment of this Court titled WAPDA & others vs. Raja Maroof & others (Civil Appeal Nos.49/2013, decided on 7/4/2014). The learned counsel also argued that the acts of WAPDA and the employees of WAPDA are governed under the WAPDA Act. The provisions of Order III, Rule 2(1)(b) CPC, are not attracted in the case. The Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) are holders of power of attorney executed by WAPDA and they are acting in this capacity, therefore, the principle of principal and agent is not attracted in the case. For clarifying the powers of agent the learned counsel referred to the cases reported as Isiah High School Chiniot (Registered) through Province of Punjab vs. Jawaad Hussain [1996 SCM R 193] and Mehmood Rangoonwala vs. Government of Sindh & others [2006 CLC 611].
10. Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, advocate, counsel for the respondents in Civil Appeals No. 304/14 and 307/14, argued that the appeals filed by WAPDA through Chief Engineer, Project Director or Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) in the High Court and this Court are not competent.
They are deriving the powers from the resolutions passed by WAPDA in 1986 and 1997 under resolution of 1997, they can only defend suits in the trial Court and file appeals before the Court of District & Sessions Judge. They have no authority to file appeals in the High Court and in this Court.
Under resolution of 1986, they have been delegated the powers to defend a suit involving the value of up to Rs. 100,000/-. For defending the suits involving the value of more than Rs. 100,000/- they have to refer the matter to the Law Division of WAPDA and under resolution of 1997 in the matters- involving the value of more than Rs. 500,000/-, they have to refer the matter to the Law Division, WAPDA. They by themselves defended the references, which were not within their financial competence. The learned counsel referred to the case reported as Mumtaz Rasool Mir vs. Tariq Mir & 5 others [2011 SCR 299].
11. Mr. Arshad Mehmood Malik, advocate, counsel for the respondents, land owners, in Civil Appeal No. 282/14, 287/14, 292/2014, 316/14, 311/14 and 308/14 submitted that the appeals filed in the High Court and this Court have been filed without, lawful. Authority. These are not competent and merit dismissal.
12. Ch. Yasir Mehmood, advocate, counsel for the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 338/14, argued that WAPDA by filing appeals in this Court through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) has admitted in the memorandum of appeals/petitions for leave to appeal that the appeals filed through Chief Engineer, Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) were not competently filed.
Now they, cannot turn round and, argue that the Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) had authority to file appeals.
13. Raja Niaz Ahmed Khan, Mr. Nazir Ahmed Ghauri, Haji Ch. Muhammad Anwar, Mirza Qamar Zaman, Mirza Aziz-ur-Rehman, Ms. Ghazala Haider Lodhi, Ch. M. Khalid Ghazi, Mr. Muhammad Siddique Chaudhary, Ch. Abdul Aziz and Mr. Muhammad Akram Mughal, advocates, representing the respondents in different appeals, argued that the appeals filed by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) in the High Court and this Court are not competent because these functionaries have not been authorized to file appeal in the High Court and the Supreme Court. They requested for dismissal of appeals.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In all the appeals, as has been observed hereinabove, the land of the land-owners was acquired for. Mangla Dam Raising Project through different awards. Dissatisfied from the compensation, the land owners filed reference applications before the Collector Mangla Dam Raising Project. The Collector Mangla Dam Raising Project referred the matters to the Reference Judge under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In some of the cases WAPDA was arrayed as party in the line of respondents through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) and in some of the cases WAPDA was arrayed as party in the line of respondents through Chairman WAPDA. In all the references before the Reference Judge Mangla. Dam Raising Project WAPDA defended the references through Chief Engineer/Project Director, and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement).
The Reference Judge enhanced the compensation amount and in most of the cases, both, the parties filed appeals in the High Court. From the judgments and decrees of the Reference Judge. All the appeals filed by WAPDA in the High Court were filed through Chief Engineer/Project Director or Superintending Engineer (Resettlement). None of the appeals was filed through Chairman. After dismissal of appeals, WAPDA filed some appeals and in some cases filed petitions for leave to appeal through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) and later on moved applications in different petitions for leave to appeal that this Court in the case titled WAPDA, & others us. Raja Maroof & others (Civil Appeal No. 49/2013, decided on 7/4/2014) has declared that Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) have no authority to file appeal in the High Court and in this Court. It was requested on behalf of appellants/petitioners that WAPDA authorities have started process for ratification of the acts done by the functionaries by filing appeals in the High Court and in this Court. Later on WAPDA filed Civil Appeals No. 196/2014., 229/2014, 288/14, 292/2014, 297/2014, 298/2014, 308/2014, 309/2014 and 338/2014, through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) and took the ground that in the light of judgment passed in Raja Maroof's case (supra) the appeals through Chief Engineer/Project Director or Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) in the High Court were not competent, therefore, these appeals are being filed through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) in the light of Resolution No. 441 of 1981. Thereupon all the petitions for leave to appeal were heard together and leave was granted to consider the question of maintainability of appeals by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) in the High -Court and this Court in the light of Sections 3(2) and 20 of the WAPDA Act and resolutions regarding delegation of powers to the functionaries of WAPDA, was granted to consider the same.
15. Haji Munsaf Dad, advocate, counsel for WAPDA, forcefully argued that the question of competency of appeals cannot be raised because it was not taken in the concise statement by the respondents. The law laid down by this Court in the case referred by Ch. Munsaf Dad, advocate, is correct that if a question has not been raised in the lower Court and in the memorandum of appeal or the concise statement in this Court, then it cannot be raised at the time of arguments but the fact remains that the question of competency of appeal in the High Court, and this, Court was raised at the time of arguments in the petitions for leave to appeal and leave to appeal was granted to consider the question of maintainability of appeal by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) and it has also been taken in the concise statement by the counsel for the respondents. The argument has no force. It is hereby repelled.
16. When a land is acquired for the public purpose and the Collector has determined and awarded the compensation, then under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, any interested person who has not accepted the award, may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred to the Court for determination of the measurement of land, amount of compensation to the person, to whom it is payable or apportionment thereof within a period of six weeks and whenever such application is made to the Collector, he shall refer the same to the Court within a period of thirty days from receipt of the same and under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector while referring the matter shall state the information about the particulars of land, trees, buildings, standing crops, names of persons interested, amount awarded for damages and the compensation amount, objection to the compensation amount, schedule of particulars of notice as served upon the parties. Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector has to furnish into the Court in respect of persons whom he has reason to think to be interested in the said land. Clause (b) is reproduced as under:-- "19. Collector's statement to the Court.--(1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the Court, in writing under his hand,-- (a)
(b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land; (c)
(d)
17. It appears from the phraseology implied in clause (b) of Section 19(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that the Collector shall furnish information in respect of persons interested, whom he has reason to believe as such. In the appeals, the land has been acquired for the project of WAPDA known as Mangla Dam Raising Project. The process of acquisition was initiated by WAPDA through Chief Engineer, Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), Mangla Dam Raising Project and the Collector while acting upon their initiative, acquired the land for a pill lic purpose.
The first interested party in the reference sent to the Reference Judge, Mangla Dam Raising Project, is the land owner, whose land has been acquired and who moved the applications to the Collector for referring the matter to the Reference Judge for determination of the questions raised, therein.
Since the process of award was initiated by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), therefore, most of the 'land-owners who made applications to the Collector, impleaded them as respondents being the functionaries and in some applications WAPDA was arrayed as party through the Chairman. Collector determined WAPDA as interested party. Chief Engineer, Project Director and the Superintending Engineer are not interested party by their office.
18. The question emerges that as to what authority was conferred by WAPDA upon the Chief Engineer, Project Director and Superintending Engineer, Mangla Dam Raising Project. WAPDA is the creation of a statute known as the Pakistan Water & Power Development Act, 1958. Under the provisions of Section 3 of the WAPDA Act, WAPDA is authority. It shall be a body corporate, shall be entitled to acquire, hold and dispose of the property, shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name, sue and be sued. The Chairman, Chief Engineer, Project Director and Superintending Engineer are functionaries/officers of WAPDA. Under Section 20 of the WAPDA Act the authority may delegate any of its powers vested in it under Section 3(2) of the WAPDA Act, to the persons mentioned therein. We deem it necessary to reproduce Section 20 of WAPDA Act, which reads as under: "20. Delegation of powers to Chairman, etc.--The Authority may by general or special order delegate to the Chairman, a Member, or officer of the Authority, any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose."
19. A bare reading of Section 20 of the WAPDA Act shows that the authority by general or special order may delegate to the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, a member or the officer the authority, any of its powers, duties or functions under the Act. The Section further provides that such delegation may contain conditions which the authority may deem fit to impose. The Chairman is defined in Section 2 while officers of the authority are mentioned in Section 17 of the WAPDA Act. The Chief Engineer, Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) are officers of WAPDA.
' WAPDA through Resolution No. 441/1981, passed on 3/3/1981, delegated the powers vested in it under Section 3(2) of the WAPDA Act for filing and defending suits, applications, appeals and revisions on behalf of the authority to the Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) WAPDA. The resolution is reproduced as under:- ' Resolution No. 441/1981:- "RESOLVED: ' In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, the authority is pleased to delegate its power under Section 3(2) of the said Act of filing and defending suits, applications, appeals and revisions on behalf of the authority to the legal advisors WAPDA, and Director (Legal), WAPDA, to engage counsel and to sanction their fee in accordance with approved schedule of fees.
' Resolution No. 408 dated 27.9.1978 is hereby cancelled."
20. A perusal of the said resolution shows that the powers of WAPDA under Section 3(2) of the WAPDA Act for filing and defending suits, applications, appeals and revisions on behalf of the authority have been delegated to the Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) WAPDA. The Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) WAPDA has further been authorized to engage counsel and sanction their fee in this respect in accordance with the approved schedule. This resolution has never been repealed. It is celebrated principle of interpretation of the power of attorney that a power of attorney should be construed strictly and should be interpreted to give only such authority to attorney as it confers expressly or by necessary implications. The important rule for the construction of such a document is that regard must be had to the recitals, which show the object of the power. A power of attorney is always subjected to strict interpretation because it delegates powers which are to be interpreted in strict terms and, in such a way, as would necessary to carry into effect the authority that is expressly given. The power of attorney is not open to that liberal interpretation, which is given to less formal instruments such as ordinary letters or instructions in commercial transactions. It has been observed in the cases reported as Manzoor Begum vs. Haji Fazal Ellahi [2012 SCR 70] as under:-- a power-of-attorney gives only such authority as it confers expressly or by necessary implication and it cannot empower beyond that but it really conveys. The most important rule for construction of power of attorney is that, regard must be had to the recitals, which, as showing the scope and object of power, will control all general terms in the operative part of the instrument. Authority is given to do a particular act followed or proceeded by general words. General words are restricted to what is necessary for proper performance of a particular act and general words in no way confer general powers, but are limited to the purpose for which the authority is given. Where special powers are followed by general wordy and vice versa the general words are construed as limited to what is necessary for proper exercise of special power.
6. A power of attorney is not open to liberal interpretation. It is subjected to strict interpretation because it delegates powers which are to be interpreted in strict terms and in such a way as would be necessary to carry into effect the authority that is expressly given ..... .."
' In the case reported as Ghazanfar Hussain us. Rehmat Bibi & 5 others [1989 CLC 310], it has been observed as under:-- "...The general terms occurring in a document executed for the purpose of appointing an attorney should be interpreted in view of the object for which such power of attorney was executed.
5. It is evident from the survey of case law cited above that it is a settled principle of law that power of attorney should always be construed strictly and the powers which have not been specifically given to an attorney or do not flow from the contents of document by necessary implication; those should not be deemed to have been conferred on the attorney concerned....
' Thus, it is declared that Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) WAPDA have valid power under Resolution No. 441/1981 for filing appeal on behalf of WAPDA in the High Court and in this Court.
21. The counsel for WAPDA relied upon two other resolutions dated 29/7/1986 and 1/7/1997 whereby, apart from others, Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers (Resettlement) and Project Directors have been authorized to file appeal and engage counsel on behalf of WAPDA. The contention of Haji Ch. Munsif Dad, advocate, is that the resolution authorizes them to engage counsel in any Court. For proper appreciation it is necessary to reproduce Resolution No. 527/1986, passed on 29/7/1986 and Resolution No. 749/1997; passed on 1/7/1997, which are as under:-- , "RESOLUTION No. 527/86. Dated 29/7/1986: ' In exercise of powers conferred by Section-20 of Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, Authority is pleased to delegate to Chairmen, Area Electricity Boards/Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers, Project Directors and Directors of the Circles/Directorates under the Authority, its powers under Section-3(2) of the said Act of filing/defending suits, other proceedings, signing, verifying plaints, written statements, other pleadings, applications, appeals and revisions on behalf of Authority in trial Courts and Courts of District & Sessions Judges in cases arising out of their respective Regions, Circles and Directorates.
' The Chairmen, Area Electricity Boards/Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers, Project Directors and Directors of the regions/circles/directorates under the authority are further authorized to engage counsels from approved panel of. Lawyers provided by Law Divisions, WAPDA and to sanction payment of fees in accordance with approved schedule of fees.Cases for sanction to the payment of amount of fees in excess of schedule fee shall be referred to appropriate authorities through Law Division WAPDA. Cases/petitions, appeals/revisions and other proceedings involving amount exceeding Rs. 100,000/- and those of service matters shall be first referred to Law Division, WAPDA for instructions."
"RESOLUTION No. 749 of 1997: ' In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 20 of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958, the authority is pleased to delegate to Chairman, Area Electricity Boards/Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers, Project Directors and Directors of the Circle/Directorate under the Authority; its powers under Section 3(2) of the said Act of filing/defending suits, other proceedings, signing, verifying plaints, written statements, other pleadings, applications, appeals and revisions on behalf of Authority in trial Courts and Courts of District & Sessions Judges in cases arising out of their respective Regions, Circles, Directorates.
' The Chairman, Area Electricity. Boards/Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers, Project Directors and Directors of the Regions/Circles/Directorates under the Authority are further authorized to engage counsel from approved panel of lawyers provided by Law Division; WAPDA and to sanction payment of fees in accordance with approved schedule of fees.
' Cases for sanction to the payment of amount of fees in excess of schedule fee shall be referred to appropriate authorities through Law Division, WAPDA.
' Cases/Petitions, appeals/revisions and other proceedings involving amount exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- and those of service matters shall be first referred to Law Division WAPDA for instructions."
22. A perusal of both the resolutions reveals that the authority while acting under Section 20 of the WAPDA Act, has delegated its powers under Section 3(2) of WAPDA Act to file, defend suits, other proceedings, signing, verifying plaints, written statements and other pleadings, applications, appeals, and revisions on behalf of the authority in the trial Court and the Courts of District & Sessions Judge in the cases arising out of their respective regions, circles and Directorates to the Chairman Area Electricity Board/Chief Engineers, Project Directors and Superintending Engineers (Resettlement) and Directors of Circles/Directorates under the authority. These officers have been conferred powers only in respect of cases falling in their respective jurisdiction to the trial Court and the Courts of District & Sessions Judges. In the recitals it has specifically been mentioned that they, have been authorized to conduct cases on behalf of WAPDA in the trial Court and the Court of District & Sessions Judge. They cannot travel beyond that. An attorney can exercise only such powers which are vested in him through the power of attorney and not beyond that.
' The argument of the counsel for the appellants that the functionaries mentioned in Para 2 of the above resolutions have further been authorized to engage counsel from the approved panel of lawyers, therefore, they are authorized to engage counsel up to the Supreme Court, has no force.
The power has specifically been conferred in Para 1 of the Resolutions for filing and defending of suits in the trial Court and filing appeals in the Court of District & Sessions Judges. They have been authorized to engage counsel up to these Courts and not beyond that. A condition is imposed in resolution of 1986 that if any case involves an amount of more than Rs. 100,000/-then the attorney holder shall refer the matter to the Law Division, WAPDA, for instructions, meaning thereby that if a case involves an amount of more than Rs. 100,000/-, the attorney holder by himself cannot proceed with the matter. He shall refer the matter to the Law Division of WAPDA who shall instruct regarding the conduct of case.
' Paras 1, 2 and 3 of Resolution No. 749/1997 dated 1/7/1997 is identical to that of Resolution No. 1986. In Para 4 only the financial powers of, the attorney holders have been raised from Rs.
100,000/- to Rs.500;000/- and when a matter involves an amount of more than Rs.500,000/- then the attorney holder shall refer the same to the Law Division, WAPDA for instructions and act according to the instructions of WAPDA. In a recent judgment recorded in the case titled WAPDA & others vs. Raja Maroof & others (Civil Appeal No. 49/2013, decided on 7/4/2014), it was observed in Para 8 as under:- "8. A perusal of above order reveals that WAPDA has delegated powers for engaging counsel on its behalf apart from Chairman, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Project, Directors and Directors of circles etc. They are competent to engage counsel for filing a suit on behalf of WAPDA, defending suits, other proceedings, signing, verifying plaints, written statements, other pleadings, applications, appeals and revisions in the trial Courts and Courts of District & Sessions Judges in cases arising out of their respective regions, circles, directorates, from approved panel of Lawyers provided by Law Division, WAPDA and also to sanction their fees in accordance with approved schedule of fee. The above authorities have been conferred powers for engaging counsel in trial Court and the Courts of District Judge and no other Court. It is a general rule of construction that a power of attorney is to be strictly construed, the attorney can only exercise such powers which are vested in it expressly or by necessary implications and regard must be had to the recitals of power of attorney. We are fortified in our view by the case reported as Muhammad Mehrban vs. Sadrud Din & another [1995 SCR 274] observed in Paras 11 and 12 as under:-- "11. The general rule of construction is that powers of attorney must be construed strictly as giving only such authority as those confer expressly or by necessary implication.
12. In 'Jiwibai vs. Ramkuwar Shriaiwas Murarka Agarwala' (AIR 1947 Nag. 17) it was observed as follows:-- 'A power of attorney is subjected to strict interpretation because it delegates powers which are to be interpreted in strict terms and in such a way, as would be necessary to carry into effect the authority that is expressly given. The power of attorney is not open to that liberal interpretation which is given to less formal instruments such as ordinary letters or instructions in commercial transaction."
23. Thus we have reached the conclusion that resolutions of 1986 and 1997 empower the Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) Mangla. Dam Raising Project to conduct cases on behalf of WAPDA up to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, that too, involving the amount of less than Rs.500,000/- and the cases involving the amount of more than Rs.500,000/- have to be referred to the Law Division, WAPDA, for instructions. The Chief Engineer, Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) are not authorized by WAPDA for filing appeal on behalf of WAPDA in the High Court or appeal or petition for leave to appeal in this Court.
All the appeals filed by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) in the High Court and appeals and petitions for leave to appeal in this Court have been filed without lawful authority and merit dismissal.
24. We have considered the argument of some of the counsel for WAPDA that under Order III, Rule 2(b), CPC, WAPDA is a foreign company and Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) are its agents. Being its agents they are carrying on trade and business for and on behalf of WAPDA. They can competently file appeal in the High Court and this Court. Order III, CPC, deals with the recognized agents. It is reproduced as under:-- "ORDER III ' RECOGNIZED AGENTS AND PLEADERS
1. Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent,- or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf: ' Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.
2. The recognized agent of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are--
(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make, and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;
(b) persona carrying on trade or business for and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts."
25. This rule empowers the recognized agents to appear and act on behalf of the authority. Para
(a) of Rule 2 provides that the persons, who are holder of power of attorney authorizing them to act on behalf of a party and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties and Para (b) deals with the persons carrying on trade and business for and on behalf of a party and in the names of parties not resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the appearance, application or act is made or done, in matters connected with such trade or business only where no other agent is expressly authorized to make and do such appearances, applications and acts. We leave the question raised by the counsel for WAPDA open far resolution in some other case that WAPDA is a foreign company in Azad Jammu & Kashmir and whether WAPDA is entitled to acquire and hold property in Azad Jammu & Kashmir or not, if directly raised. This question is not relevant at the present stage because the question before us is that the Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) are admittedly officers of WAPDA who are working on behalf of WAPDA. They are attorney holders of WAPDA in the light of Resolution No. 749/1997 passed under Section 20 of the WAPDA Act wherein WAPDA has conferred its powers vested in it under Section 3(2) of the WAPDA Act for initiating and defending proceedings by and on behalf of WAPDA in the trial Court and the Court of District & Sessions Judge. When these officers are holders of valid power of attorney, the provisions of Para (a) of Rule 2 of Order III, CPC, are attracted and not the provision of Para (b).
26. In some cases WAPDA was arrayed as party through Chairman WAPDA before the Reference Judge. The Chief Engineer/ Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) were not attorney holders of the Chairman. They not only defended the reference, which was beyond their financial competence without any authority, but also filed appeals in the High Court and petitions for leave to appeal and appeals in this Court, as such the appeals were not competently filed.
' There are two types of appeals filed by WAPDA through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal), WAPDA; the appeals filed from dismissal of appeals filed by WAPDA in the High Court and the appeals from the judgment and decree of the High Court whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation amount in the appeals filed by the landowners. Since the appeals filed by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) in the High Court have been declared to have been filed without lawful authority, therefore, the appeals of WAPDA through Legal Advisor/Director(Legal) against the dismissal of their appeals by the High Court are not competent, while the appeals filed by WAPDA from the judgment and decree of the High Court whereby compensation has been enhanced by the High Court, filed through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal), WAPDA, are competent.
27. We have also considered the argument of the counsel for the appellants that under Order XLI, Rule 1, CPC, a person, who is party in the lower Court, is allowed to file appeal in the appellate Court.
Appeals under Sections 96 to 99, CPC, are filed under Order XLI, Rule 1, CPC. In the light of provisions of Section 96, the persons who are parties in the suit and who are adversely affected by the decree, can file appeal. The affected person is WAPDA. WAPDA has a right to file appeals against the judgment and decree of the Reference Judge but the appeals filed by Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) are without lawful authority, as has been observed hereinabove.
28. The result of above discussion is that Civil Appeals No. 77/13 titled WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director Mangla Dam Raising Project vs. Muhammad Iqbal & 10 others, Civil Appeal No. 99/13 titled WAPDA through Project Director/Chief Engineer Mangla Dam Raising Project vs. Raja Abdul Hameed Kiani, Civil Appeal No. 136/13, WAPDA & another vs. Muhammad Hanif & others, Civil Appeal No. 150/13 titled WAPDA & another vs. Zareena Begum & others, Civil Appeal No. 58/14, titled WAPDA & others vs. Muhammad Ashraf & another, Civil Appeal No. 60/14, titled WAPDA & others vs. Raja Abdul Hameed Kiani & others, Civil Appeal No. 280/14 titled WAPDA & another vs. Nasim Begum & others, Civil Appeal No. 281/2014 titled WAPDA & another vs. Allah Ditta & others, Civil Appeal No. 282/2014 titled WAPDA & another vs. Manzoor Hussain & others, Civil Appeal No. 283/2014 titled WAPDA & another vs. Binyamin Mughal & others, Civil Appeal No. 287/2014 titled Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) another vs. Karam Dad & others, Civil Appeal No. 288/2014 tided WAPDA vs: Muhammad Basharat & others, Civil Appeal No. 292/2014 titled WAPDA vs. Attiqur Rehman & others, Civil Appeal No. 294/2014 titled Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) another vs. Raja Jehangir Akhtar & others, Civil Appeal No. 296/2014 titled WAPDA & another vs. Mst Said Begum & others, Civil Appeal No. 297/2014 titled GM/Project Director & others vs. Abdul Karim & others, Civil Appeal No. 300/2014 titled WAPDA & others vs. Muzaffar Ali Zaffar & others, Civil Appeal No. 304/2014 titled WAPDA & others vs. Muhammad Aslam & others, Civil Appeal No. 307/2014 titled Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) & another vs. Tariq Mehmood & others, Civil Appeal No. 308/2014 titled WAPDA & another vs. Tariq Mehmood & others, Civil Appeal No. 310/2014 titled WAPDA & others vs. Sajawal Khan & others, Civil Appeal No. 311/2014 titled WAPDA & others vs. Muhammad Azam & others, Civil Appeal No. 312/2014 titled WAPDA & others vs. Sajawal Khan & others, Civil Appeal No. 313/2014 titled Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) & others vs. Muhammad Fazil & others, Civil Appeal No. 316/2014 titled WAPDA & others vs. Muhammad Riaz & others and Civil Appeal No. 338/2014 titled WAPDA vs. Muhammad Boota & others, were incompetently filed in the High Court and in this Court, which are hereby dismissed.
' Civil Appeal No. 196/2014 titled WAPDA & another vs. Amin Bibi & others, Civil Appeal No. 229/2014 titled WAPDA us. Muhammad Ismail & others, Civil Appeal No. 298/2014 titled WAPDA us.
Muhammad Hussain & others and Civil Appeal No. 309/2014 titled WAPDA vs. Muhammad Ismail & another, filed through Legal Advisor/Director (Legal) WAPDA are competent to the extent of enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the High Court.
29. Civil Appeal No. 196/2014 titled WAPDA & another vs. Amin Bibi & others, Civil Appeal No. 229/2014 .Titled WAPDA us. Muhammad Isma il & others, Civil Appeal No. 298/2014 titled WAPDA us.
Muhammad Hussain & others and Civil Appeal No. 309/2014 titled WAPDA vs. Muhammad Ismail & another shall be heard on merit. Additional Registrar shall fix the dates after notice to the counsel for the parties.
' All the appeals are disposed of with no order as to the costs.