Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, J.-- These appeals by leave of the Court have been addressed against the judgments of the High Court dated 03.08.2015 and 16.05.2016.
2. The facts, shortly stated, are that on appeal of the respondents-landowners this Court vide judgment dated 03.12.2014 fixed the compensation amount of the land situated at Tariqabad and Gulshan Pir Alla-ud-Din as Rs.
6,00,000/- and 7,00,000/- per marla, respectively. After pronouncement of judgment of this Court, the respondents-landowners filed an application before the learned Reference Judge, Muzaffarabad for execution of the decree. After necessary proceedings, the learned Reference Judge vide orders dated 29.05.2015, 03.07.2015 and 08.07.2015 ordered for attachment of Bank accounts of Development Authority Muzaffarabad for payment of decretal amount. Against these orders the Development Authority filed appeal No. 103/2015 before the High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2015.
3. The Reference Court also ordered for attachment of Bank account of Collector Land Acquisition and payment of Rs. 20,000,000/- vide orders dated 09.07.2015 and 15.07.2015. Against these orders Azad Government and Collector Land Acquisition filed revision petition No. 115/2015 before the High Court. Through order dated 10.09.2015 the Reference Judge ordered for attachment of vehicles of the Development Authority. The Development Authority challenged the order dated 10.09.2015 by way of appeal before the High Court and prayed for holding the Azad Government as principal decree holder. The learned High Court through consolidated judgment dated 16.05.2016 accepted the revision petition only to the extent of Collector Land Acquisition while setting-aside the order dated 07.07.2015. The appeal filed by the Development Authority was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant appeals by leave of the Court.
4. As identical legal and factual propositions are involved in these appeals, therefore, disposal of same through single consolidated judgment is felt advised.
5. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, Development Authority, submitted that according to the facts involved in this case, the Development Authority is not solely responsible for providing funds as the scheme was basically launched by City Development Project. The Development Authority was just an assisting organization. The funds were provided by the donor agencies for the specified period. Even otherwise, according to the Statute it is the duty of the Government to approve and provide budget for the Development Authority, thus, basically the duty lies upon the Government to provide funds for satisfaction of the decrees. The executing Court as well as the High Court fell in error of law while taking coercive measures for execution of decree against the Development Authority, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable. He further submitted that the Development Authority has already taken up the matter with the Government which is under process.
6. Sardar Javaid Naz, Additional Advocate-General, the learned counsel for the Collector Land Acquisition submitted that the order passed by the executing Court is against the law. Although, the High Court in the impugned the judgment granted partial relief but the same has been granted without determination of legal obligation of the appellant.
7. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the land-owners seriously objected to the competency of the appeals and submitted that according to the statutory provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 it is the duty of the acquiring agency to provide funds. The law, specially, section 28-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is very much clear on the subject. The Courts below have not erred in passing the impugned orders.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. According to the stated facts the judgment in appeals regarding determination of the compensation has attained finality and the matter is at the stage of execution of the decrees. So far as the appeal of Collector Land Acquisition is concerned, the High Court has rightly set-aside the order of the executing Court. According to the statutory provisions, the Collector Land Acquisition is a referee. He is neither acquiring agency nor falls in the line of interested persons. Under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, his duty is only to disburse the funds provided by the concerned agency/authority on completion of award proceedings or in compliance of judgments of Courts as compensation or enhanced compensation. The Collector Land Acquisition has to perform his functions in relation to different acquisition matters and his account cannot be freezed or attached for satisfaction of the decrees unless according to law the approved amount of compensation relating to subject-matter of the decree is lying with him.
If it is proved that the amount of funds of the subject-matter has been specifically provided and lying with the Collector Land Acquisition then to the extent of such amount, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may pass order but as in this case the Court has passed order of freezing of the accounts of the Collector Land Acquisition and not relating to the property, subject-matter of the case, thus, the order has been rightly set-aside by the learned High Court calling for no interference in view of hereinabove observations.
8. So far as the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant in other two appeals are concerned, according to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, it is the duty of the acquiring agency or the legal person for whom the property has been acquired, to provide sufficient funds for the compensation to be paid to the land-owners. As far as the stance of the Development Authority that basically it is the Government which has to provide the funds and sufficient budget is concerned, in our opinion, the statutory provisions of Development Authority Muzaffarabad Act, 1989, specially, section 21 and 22 are very much clear. According to law the Government has to approve the budget of the Development Authority and it is the duty of the Development Authority to prepare budget keeping in view the required funds. Same like, the other proposition that the Development Authority was only assisting organization and the duty of provision of funds lies upon some other agency is concerned, all these matters relate to executing Court. The High Court has also observed that the land-owners may apply to the executing Court for execution of the decree against the Government. The proposition which has been raised by the Development Authority in the appeals, is basically of administrative nature to be mutually resolved by the Development Authority and the Government. According to law the Development Authority has to act on its part and take necessary measures for preparation and approval of required budget. In the light of hereinabove stated reasons, the executing Court has to act according to law dealing the subject-matter while attending all the ancillary and incidental issues relating to the subject matter. The appellants may raise all these questions before the executing Court.
In the light of above mentioned observations, the impugned judgments of the High Court do not suffer from any illegality calling for interference of this Court. All the three appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.