C.M. No,1-C/12 ' This is an application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 seeking condonation of delay in preference of the instant appeal. The L.A.C. Determined the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs,27000/- per Kanal. The respondents made an application seeking enhancement. It was referred to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhakkar. The referee Court passed the award dated 12.3.2011 wherein the compensation was fixed at Rs,1,00,000/- per Kanal. The appellants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. It was returned for presentation before the proper forum vide order dated 28.5.2012. The instant appeal was preferred on 04.09.2012.
2. It is contended that the petitioners/appellants were prosecuting the appeal before a wrong forum in good faith as according to the value of the subject matter, prima facie an appeal in a suit would have been preferred before the learned District Judge; that the appeal, after its return, could not be immediately preferred as the petitioner had to obtain the certified copy of the order of return dated 28.5.2012. It took some days to obtain he sanction for preferring the appeal from the concerned quarters. Then High Court was closed for summer vacation. The Registry of High Court was not receiving the un-urgent cases. It could only be filed on the 1st day after the Court opened after summer vacation, as is permitted under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Relies on Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd v. Lawari and 4 others (PLD 2000 Supreme Court 94), Board of Governors Area Study Centre for Africa and North America, Quaid-e-Azam, University, Islamabad and another v. Ms Farah Zahra PLD 2005 Supreme Court 153), Government of Balochistan through Secretary Board of Revenue, Balochistan Quetta and others. v. Muhammad Ali and 11 others (2007 SCMR 1574) and Abrar-al-Haq Shami, Deputy Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis, Islamabad (2012 SCMR 1292).
3. On the other hand, this application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Contends that instead of preference of an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in High Court. The preference of an appeal before the learned District Judge cannot be termed to be prosecution of appeal in good faith before a wrong forum; that it it is considered to be a case where condonation of delay is sought under Section 5 or exclusion of period is required under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, each and every day spent after the expiry of requisite period of limitation has not been explained. The instant appeal preferred on 5.9.2011 is hopelessly time 'barred. Further contends that elapse of period creates rights in favour of the other party. That cannot be taken away. The Government, who makes laws must adhere to it, he argues. Relies on Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar (PLD 1977 Supreme Court 102), Mirza Muhammad Saeed v. Shahab ud Din and 8 others (PLD 1983 'Supreme Court 385), Manzoor Hussain and 2 others v. Muhammad Ali and another (1989 SCMR 1498),
1. Tanveer Jamshed 2. Major (Rtd.)
Jamshed Alam Khan v. Raja Ghulam Haider (1992 SCMR 917), Ferro Alloys v. Toyo Menka Kaisha (1992 CLC 712), Raja Karamatullah .And 3 others v. Sardar Muhammad As/am Sukhera (1999 SCMR 1892), Abdul Rehmq n Qamar v. Government of N.W.F.P through Secretary Education, Peshawar and 5 others [2003 PLC (C.S) 1171] Monazah Parveen v. Bashir Ahmad and 6 others (2003 SCMR 1300), Br. Jehanzaib Rahim v. Dr. Shaukat Pervez and others (PLD 2007 SC 560), Abdul Majid etc. v. Mst. Zubeda Begum 'etc. 2007 SCMR 866, Chairman, District Govt. Evacuee Trust, Jhelum v. Abdul Khaliq through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 436) and Collector, Land Acquisition, Chashma Right Bank Canal Project WAPDA, D.
1. Khan and others v. Ghulam Sadiq and others (2002 SCMR 677).
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The impugned award was passed by the referee Court on 12.3.2011. The appeal preferred before the learned District Judge, Bhakkar .Was returned vide order dated 28.5.2012. Even if the requisite period spent in obtaining a copy of the order dated 28.5.2012, which if calculated comes to 14 days, is excluded, still delay of each and every day after 13.6.2012 when the copy of the order dated 28.5.2012 was delivered to the appellants till 02.07.2012, when High Court closed for summer vacation, which has to be explained, goes unexplained. This appeal was preferred on 04.09.2012, the first day when the High Court opened after the summer vacation. The delay till 02.07.2012 is fatal for .Petitioner/appellant's case. Reliance is placed on PLD 2007 SC 560. The valuable rights that have been created in favour of respondents can not be taken away. Reliance is placed on 2007 SCMR 860. The Government that makes laws, must follow the laws and cannot claim a concessional treatment. The cardinal principle that where two interpretations are possible the one more favouring the feeble individual vis-a-vis the omnipotent state and its functionaries should be adopted, also stems out from the same logic that it is the State that makes the laws, who has to adhere to the law more strictly than an individual who has no role to play in the scheme of law making. Reliance is placed on PLD 2002 Supreme Court 436 and 2002. SCMR 677. The gross negligence of a counsel in selection of the forum, like the case in hand where section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides the remedy of appeal before High Court, furnishes no ground for exclusion of time or condonation of delay. Reliance is placed on PLD 1977 Supreme Court 102, PLD 1983 Supreme Court 385, 1989 SCMR 1498, 1992 CLC 712, 1999 SCMR 1892, 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1171 and 2003 SCMR 1300.
6. With due reverence, we dare opine that the Judgments cited by the petitioners/appellants render them little help. In case law referred as PLD 2005 Supreme Court 153, the question was relating to exclusion of time spent for obtaining the copy of the judgment of the learned Single Judge for preferring an ICA. Whether the copy was required or not is an .Intricate question of law. In the referred case even due diligence could give way to a mistake in selection of forum. In PLD 2000 Supreme Court 94, the due care and caution exercised in making selection of forum has been held to be the core point in determining whether a party had acted in good faith or not. But in the instant case, the mistake is so Himalayan and the indolence is so glaring in selection of forum that no question arises for exclusion of time under section 14 or condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act 1908. In the case law referred as 2007 SCMR 1574, the condonation of delay of 320 days has a corresponding deterrence. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan directed competent authority to proceed against all the concerned delinquent officers and public functionaries by taking disciplinary action under the appropriate law and rules for not having approached the lower appellate Court and the august Supreme Court within the prescribed period of limitation. In spite of the action directed to be taken against the public functionaries, they have not mended themselves and have again, on account of their gross negligence preferred the instant appeal before the learned District Judge in a case of compensation falling under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This appeal was preferred after another long delay after receipt of the copy of order dated 28.5.2012 on 13.6.2012. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan had given that relaxation with an expectation that the functionaries will mend themselves and will act with diligence in future. The condonation of delay and the relaxation granted by the apex Court has been responded with repetition of the same deplorable conduct and attitude by the public functionaries. The same leniency cannot always be extended to the Governments and the authorities.
7. In our view, this application which does not contain sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and exclusion of time, merits dismissal. Relying on the judgments referred to by the learned counsel . For the respondents, this application is dismissed. Resultantly R.F.A. .No,696/12 is also dismissed.