This judgment shall dispose of the following four revision petitions, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. It shall however, remain on the file of Revision Petition No. 767/1977 S. No.C.R. No.TitleAppealSuit No number of the 1 appellate Court.
12 345 1.767/177Muhammad Gohar,57/1974816/285 etc. v. Pakistanof 1970. and another 2.768/1977Muhammad Siddique, 55/1974of 1970-- etc, v. Pakistan1114/832 and others.1972.
3.769/1977Mumtaz Hussain, etc. 58/1974244/834 v. Pakistan andof 1970. another.
4.770/1977Abdul Hakeem, etc. 19/1974243/835 v. Pakistan andof 1970-- another.1972.st The facts of these cases, in brief are that some evacuee land, situate in Chak No. 41/N.B., Tehsil and District Sargodha, was allotted and confirmed in the names of either the petitioners or their predecessor-in-- interest, against their respective verified claims for agricultural land. The land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, for the purposes of the Central Government, for construction of an Air-base. The com--pensation was assessed but however, instead of paying it to the petitioners, it appears to have been deposited in the account of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, who was 'sued as defendant No. 2.
2. The petitioners filed civil suits for declaration that they were absolute owners of the land in dispute which was in possession of respondent No. 1 without, lawful authoritythey were entitled to payment of market price, mesne profits and interest with effect from the respondents' date of possession and that the demand of respondent No. 2 as to the price of the land, in the shape of compensation, was improper, illegal and ineffective. Respondent No. 1 contested the suit whereas the Custodian of Evacuee Property was proceeded against ex parte. The learned trial Court by its order dated 24th February, 1972 consolidated all the suits. On the basis of the evidence led before him, Masood Akthar Khan, the then Civil Judge, 1st Class Sargodha, who was seized of these suits, main--tained that the land was transferred to the petitioners in lieu of their verified claims, and that it was acquired for construction of Air Base, but no compensation was paid to them. He also held that the Custodian was not entitled to receive the compensation assessed and awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Accordingly, by his judgment dated 27th November, 1973 he decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, respondent No. 1 preferred 4 separate appeals. Before the learned District Judge the learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that respondent No. 1 having paid the amount of the compensation to the Custodian of Evacuee Property, stood discharged of his obligation and that the decree would--be executed only against the latter. On the strength of this statement, the learned District Judge on 1st March, 1976 modified the decree of the learned trial Court, to the extent that it would be executed only against the Custodian and disposed of the appeals is accordingly.
It is against the judgment and decree of the learned 1st Appellate Court, that the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. 1 have heard the petitioners' learned counsel and so also Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad the learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan. As despite service no one entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1, I sent for the latter who entered appearance under my directions. He has also been heard.
5. The impugned judgments are founded on the statement of the petitioners' learned counsel. I do not think that there is much in these petitions, to justify an interference therewith, in this respect.
6. After going through the record before me, I, however. Feel that the judgments and the decrees of the learned Courts below are liable to be quashed in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is discernible from the judgment rendered by the learned Civil Judge that the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners.
The compensation was essentially a esessed in terms of a specific amount. It is doubtful, when further relief by way of recovery of compensation was available to the petitioners, a suit for mere declaration could be sustained. Even if suit m its present form is maintainable, since the record of the Land Acquisition Collector, in respect of acquisition of the suit land was before the learned Civil Judge, he should have mentioned in his judgment the precise amount payable to petitioners. It is not conceivable how a declaration that the petitioners were entitled to the market value of the land and the mesne profits, could be issued, and such a declaration can be of any use to the petitioners.
It is well settled that a declaration which is ineffective, need not be made. Even the learned counsel for the petitioners had to concede that the declara--tion given by the learned trial Court, because of its inchoate character, can be rendered nugatory by the respondent and that practically no relief has been accorded to the petitioners. He, however, came forth with the request to allow the petitioners to amend the plaints suitably.
7. For all these reasons the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are set aside and the cases are remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. It shall be open to the petitioners to move before that Court the applications for amendment of the plaints. If such applications are filed, these shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
M, Y, H. Petitions accepted.