ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant civil revision petition the petitioners have assailed the impugned judgments/ orders dated 06.06.2018 and order 26.6.2018, passed by the learned District Judge/Referee Judge Diamer whereby the learned trial court has directed the present petitioners to deposit 8% compound interest along with disputed compensation amount in the court.
2. Brief facts forming background of this revision petition are that the present respondents Nos.1 to 12 filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the present petitioners and present respondents Nos. 13 to 128 in the court of the learned District/Referee Judge Diamer claiming therein that the respondents Nos. 1 to 13 being owners of acquired land are entitled to get 2/3 share out of total compensation amount assessed/determined vide award No. LAC (DBDP)-10/2015 dated 26.4.2016 passed by present petitioner No.2 Collector Land Acquisition Diamer in respect of acquired land under certain khasra numbers mentioned in the heading of reference petition situated at Talphan Khiner Chilas District Diamer but the respondents Nos. 13 to 128 and present petitioners are reluctant to give the due share of compensation amount to the present respondents Nos. 1 to 12, therefore decree as prayed for may be granted in favour of the present respondents Nos.1 to 12.
3. During pendency of the aforesaid reference petition the learned Referee Judge Diamer has passed the aforementioned impugned orders against the present petitioners, hence this revision petition.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that on receipt/filing of this revision petition office of this court issued notices to respondents. Accordingly the representatives of respondents Nos.1 to 12 appeared before the Assistant Registrar (Judicial) of this court on 12-10-2018 and thereafter they also appeared on some dates of hearing and lateron the representatives of respondents Nos. 1 to 12 remained absent. The respondents Nos. 13 to 128 did not appear before the Assistant Registrar (Judicial) of this court despite issuance of several ordinary notices in their name and finally notice under Order V, Rule 20, C.P.C. was issued to the respondents Nos. 13 to 128 which was published in daily K-2 Gilgit-Baltistan on 29th November 2018, but they did not turn up, thus all the present respondents were proceeded ex-parte by this court vide order sheet dated 05.3.2019.
5. The learned Deputy Advocate General (Civil) appearing on behalf of the petitioners and counsel for the petitioner No.2 contended that impugned judgments/ orders passed by the learned District/ Referee Judge Diamer is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgments/orders passed by the learned trial court are not maintainable and liable to be set aside.
The learned Dy.A.G. (Civil) further argued that award of the acquired land was passed on 26th April 2016 and compensation amount of said award was placed at the disposal of Assistant Commissioner office Chilas for payment to Concerned owners of acquired land. The petitioner No. 2 has paid compensation amount to various land owners prior to institution of case except compensation amount of some Khasra numbers which were stopped by order of civil court vide stay order No. CJC-(5) 2014 dated 28th April 2018 passed in case titled Jumla Malikan Batokhail Chilas Versus Mohammad Nawaz etc. The learned Dy.A.G. (Civil) further argued that thereafter, the present respondents Nos.1 to 12 have filed a reference petition in the court of the learned Referee Judge Diamer against the respondents Nos. 13 to 128 and present petitioners for apportionment of compensation amount and as per order of the learned Referee Judge Diamer dated 11-6-2016 the compensation amount involved against the stopped khasra number has been sent to the learned District/Referee Judge Diamer by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 02.9.2016, hence the respondents are not entitled for compound interest. The learned Dy. AG (Civil) further argued that since the possession of acquired land also has not been taken by the present petitioners, therefore the petitioners are not entitled for compound interest.
6. I have heard the learned Dy.AG (Civil) and examined the record with his assistance.
7. So far as entitlement of the compound interest is concerned, the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition. Act specifically provide that the person/persons whose land is acquired by Government machinery for utilization of public purpose are entitled for compound interest at the rate of Rs.8% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till payment of compensation but in the present case the land of the respondents has been acquired for construction of Diamer/Basha Dam Project and admittedly the construction work of Diamer/Basha Dam has yet not been started on the spot and as such possession of land of the respondents has not been taken by the present petitioners therefore, the respondents are not entitled for 8% compound interest under the provisions of section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Moreover, the respondents have even not claimed for 8% compound interest in their reference petition rather the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act has been filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 for apportionment of compensation amount. Thus question for payment of compound interest to the respondents does not arise.
8. Further more, soon after passing of the award the acquiring agency has deposited the compensation amount of acquired land with the office of Assistant Commissioner Chilas but due to litigation between respondents Nos. 1 to 12 and 13 to 128 compensation amount could not be paid/distributed among the respondents, hence the respondents are not entitled for 8% compound interest. The learned Referee Judge Diamer has committed material irregularity and illegality while directing the petitioners to deposit 8% compound interest along with compensation in the court.
9. However, if the petitioner No. 2 has yet not deposited the disputed compensation amount in the court, he is directed to deposit the dispute compensation amount in the court of learned Referee Judge/District Judge Diamer without fail.
10. The upshot of above discussion is that this civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently the impugned orders dated 06-6-2018 and 26-6-2018 passed by the learned District Judge/Referee Judge Diamer to the extent of payment/ deposition of 8% compound interest under the provisions of Section 34 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 is set aside. File.