MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, J. Through this common judgment, we intend to decide the above two appeals as both are directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Judl.), Lahore, whereby Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the appellants in R.F.A.
No.208866/2018 (hereinafter called as "the appellants"), stood partially accepted and the compensation awarded to them was enhanced and decreed @ Rs.12,00,000/- per marla alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges with 8% compound interest from the date of possession till actual payment. Additionally , the appellants were held entitled for compensation of loss of structure to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Ten Million) with 15% compulsory charges. For clarity of facts, the Land Acquisition Collector etc. (appellants in R.F.A. No.218784/2018) are hereinafter referred to as the respondents?.
2. Initially the Reference was filed by the appellants impleading the Land Acquisition Collector , Secretary (S&R)/District Collector Ring Road, Secretary Settlement/Executive District Officer Revenue Ring Road, Excise and Taxation Officer, Senior Member , Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Exec utive Engineer , Provincial Road Construction Division, Lahore. The learned Referee Court after recording evidence of the parties although enhanced the rate of compensation but not in terms of the claim of the present appellants, therefore, they preferred appeal bearing R.F.A. No.208866/2018 against the decision of the learned Referee Court. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Collector etc. filed R.F.A. No.218784/2018 against the decision of learned Referee Court in regard to the enhancement of compensation.
3. During the course of arguments, it was noticed that the appellants filed an application for rejection of the appeal (R.F.A. No.218784/2018 on the premise that it was filed by an incompetent person/Land Acquisition Collector; who being not aggrieved person against the decision of learned Referee Court; as the acquiring agency against whom the compensation stood enhanced, was only the competent authority/person to file the appeal.
When confronted, learned counsel for the respondents contends that after promulgation of The Lahore Ring Road Authority Act, 2011, an Authority has been constituted to look after the affairs of the Ring Road which had not been impleaded as a party in the Reference nor as respondent; and on the other hand Land Acquisition Collector was the respondent in Reference; hence, in such eventuality it could not be declared that the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Collector was filed by incomp etent person. On further query , he asserted that omission committed by the appellants in their Reference by not impleading the necessary party as a respondent is enough to vitiate all the Reference proceedings conducted/done by the learned Referee Court. At this juncture the learned counsel for the appellants supplicates to withdraw the application seeking rejection of respondents' appeal and offer to decide both the appeals on the basis of material available on record. Whereas on the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the appellants, who were applicants before the learned Referee Court had not impleaded the Ring Road Authority (acquiring body of the land-in-question) as a respondent, therefore, in absence of Authority's representation neither these appeals nor the Reference before the Referee Court are proceedable as Authority had not been allowed to plead its case at the trial level, therefore, enhanced compensation claimed by the owner of the land-in-question without impleading the Authority as party , would render it as condemned unheard. Further submit s that even in both the appeals, they are not party and non-impleadment of necessary party is a material illegality and irregularity in holding the trial which is sufficient to declare the proceedings conducted by the learned Referee Court illegal and without lawful authority .
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through record of the case.
5. A glaring omission to implead the nece ssary party in the Reference goes to the very root of the proceedings and therefore, the appeal even before this Court filed by the present appellants; operates as a material illegality and irregularity floating on the surface, manif estly necessitating to hold that a necessary party has been condemned unheard at the stage of the proceedings of Reference by the learned Referee Court and also makes this appeal incompetent in absence of a necessary party . The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the proceedings of acquisition were initiated on the request of Executive Engineer Provincial Road Construction Division, Lahore/respondent No.4 who is also respondent No.7 in this appeal and was also party in the proceedings before the Referee Court where he contested the Reference and adduced evidence, therefore, non-impleading of the party in the Reference would not affect the rights of the Ring Road Author ity, on whose behalf case was contested; and which was constituted after promulgation of the Act ibid. We are afraid, there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. The Ring Road Authority (acquiring body of the land/subject matter) as contemplated in Sections 20 & 50(2) of the Act, 1894, was necessary or proper party in the proceedings of the Reference filed by the appellants (owners of acquired land) for the purpose of determination of the compensation by the Referee Court. By virtue of Sections 20 and 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was enjoined upon the Court not only to issue notice to the acquiring body of land but also ensure its presence besides grantin g opportunity to lead evidence. Meaning thereby acquiring body of land had all the rights of a necessary party in such legal proceedings.
The Executive Engineer Provincial Road Construction Division, Lahore was author ized by the C&W Department to work on behalf of the department in the acquisition process but he was not liable to sue or to be sued on behalf of the department except impleading the department itself even through that officer. Neither the C&W department nor subsequently constituted Ring Road Authority; even at the initial stage of the Reference which was filed in January , 2010 and the Ring Road Authority was constituted in the year 2011, was impleaded party in the Reference, therefore, any proceedings joined and conducted by respondent No.4/Executive Engineer , Provincial Road Construction Division, Lahore, (irrelevant person) either on behalf of C&W department or the Ring Road Authority are declared as having no legal value being carried out by an un-authorized perso n and could not be relied upon under the principle of ratification as envisaged under Section 196 of Contract Act (I of 1877). Reliance is placed on Muhammad Zakria and 3 others v . Bashir Ahmad ( 2001 CLC 595 ) wherein it has been held: "The principle of ratification is subject to the limitation that the person ratifying the contract must, at least, in order to be bound, know fully all the material circumstances, under which the act is so done and that act, which is cited to be ratified must not be a void act. Reference in this behalf can be made to Abdul Majid and 2 others v. Waris Ali and another 1999 YLR 1668 . As per Imperial Bank of Canada v. Mary Victoria Begley AIR 1936 PC 193, the principle of ratification can be pressed into service, if certain conditions are fulfilled. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below:-- "The first essential to the doctrine of ratification, with its necessary consequence of relating back, is that the agent shall not be acting for himself, but shall be intending to bind a named or ascertain able principal. Hence where the agent puts some of the principal' s money in his pocket, there cannot be any questi on of ratification by the principal, as the agent cannot be deemed to have taken the money for himself as agent for the principal. If the act has been authorized, the contract between the principal and the agent would be the ordinary contract of loan."
6. In view of the above, we allow the R.F.A. No.218784/2018 and while disposing of R.F.A. No.208866/2018 being infructuous as we set-aside the impugne d judgment of the learned Referee Court; for initiating fresh proceedings by directing the applicants in the Reference to file the amended memo of parties for impleading Ring Road Authority as a respondent and permit it to file the written statement, frame the issues afresh and allow the parties to record their complete evidence. However , if the applicants of the Reference adopt oral and documentary evidence earlier led by them, the respondents would be at liberty to lead fresh evidence and thereafter the Reference shall be decided in accordance with law. Resultantly , R.F.A. No.218784/2018 is accepted , case is remanded and R.F.A.
No.208866 is hereby disposed of being infructuous.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge (Judl.) Lahore on 26.03.2020 who shall decide the matter in accordance with law .