Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J. The titled appeal by leave of the Court has arisen out of the judgment of the High Court dated ' 16.05.2019, whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, herein, has been accepted.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Respondent No. 1, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court, alleging therein, that the Collector Land Acquisition City Development Project, Muzaffarabad/Appellant No. 1, herein, acquired some piece of the land of the respondents, herein, for extension of the Naluchi Bypass Road, bearing Survey No 2843-min, measuring 1 marla 5 sarsai, along with the land bearing Survey No. 2844-min (Shamilat Deh), measuring 1 marla and 7 sarsai, situate at Gojra (Bala Peer), Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad and the compensation amount of Rs.
22,79,548/- was received by respondents in the light of Awards No. 12/2009, dated 05.11.2009 and 14/2009, dated 14.12.2009. The respondents/appellants, ' herein, after the passage of a long time initiated the proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount of Rs. 22,79,548/- against Respondent No. 1, herein, by declaring him as defaulter, hence he filed the writ petition before the High Court. In the writ petition, Respondent No. 1, herein, solicited the relief that the letter dated 06.02.2015, issued by the Appellant No. 1, herein regarding the recovery of Rs. 22,79,548/- may kindly be quashed and further restrained from de-awarding the awarded land and structure. The writ petition was contested by the respondents/appellants, herein, by filing the written statement, wherein, the claim of Respondent No. 1, herein was refuted in toto. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment accepted the writ petition and while quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellants, herein, issued the direction to dispose of the land in dispute in the light of the procedure provided in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Rules, 1994. This judgment of the learned High Court is the subject matter of the instant appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Mazhar Waheed Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General while appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is against law and the record of the case, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submitted that Respondent No. 1, herein, in his writ petition based his claim on erroneous facts, whereas the fact of the matter is that award No. 03/2009, dated 26.03.2009, has been de-awarded along-with structure in favour of the owners vide notification dated 24.05.2013, hence, the letter dated 06.02.2015, for recovery of Rs. 22,79,548/- has rightly been issued. He further added that the notification dated 24.05.2013, was appended with the written statement but the learned High Court did not consider this important aspect of 'the case and letter dated 06.02.2015 has wrongly been set aside vide impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is beyond the pleadings of the parties, hence the same is liable to be reversed and prayed for acceptance of appeal.
4. Conversely, Syed Zulqarnain Raza Naqvi, the learned Advocate, representing the respondents submitted that the impugned judgment is legal and perfect in all aspects, hence is not open for interference by this Court. He submitted that through notification dated 24.05.2013, the land acquired from Survey No. 2844, has been de-awarded whereas the appellants, have initiated the proceedings for recovery of the compensation of the land and structure which has not been de- awarded. The learned High Court after thorough scrutiny of the record dealt with the proposition in a legal manner and has committed no illegality while passing the impugned judgment. He prayed for dismissal of appeal.
5. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General as well as the learned Advocate representing the respondents and gone through the record made available along with the impugned judgment. The perusal of the record reveals that the Collector Land Acquisition, Appellant No. 1, herein, acquired some land of the respondents herein, along with the structure vide award No. 03/2009, dated 26.03.2009, award No. 12/2009, dated 05.11.2009 and award No. 14/2009, dated 14.12.2009. The respondents, herein, have received the compensation of their awarded land along with structure. Later on, vide notification dated 24.05.2013, award No. 03/2009 dated 26.03.2009, has been de-awarded. The Appellant No. 1, herein, wrote a letter dated 06.02.2015, to Appellant No. 3 for recovery of the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 22,79,548/- regarding the de-awarded land and structure. On the initiation of aforesaid proceedings, Respondent No. 1, herein, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, wherein he prayed for the following relief: "It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that by accepting the instant writ petition while declaring proceedings initiated against the petitioner under impugned letter No. 2015/322/ dated 06.02.2015 (Annexures "PE" & "PE/1") has been taken without lawful authority, the respondents may very kindly be ordered to be restrained from proceedings and prosecuting against the petitioner and pro forma respondents for recovery of compensation amount Rs. 22,79,548/- received for awards No. 14/2009 dated 14.12.2009 and 12/2009, dated 05.11.2009 from the petitioner and de-awarding the awarded land and structure in furtherance of impugned letters (Annexures "PE" & "PE/1") as the aforementioned award has become complete and conclusive under sections 11 & 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same could not be recalled and cancelled and the compensation amount could not be recovered from the petitioner and proforma. respondent as arears of the Land Revenue under Land Revenue Act, 1867 and Land Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. Any other relief which the petitioner is entitled may kindly be granted in the interest of justice."
The learned High Court through the impugned judgment accepted the writ petition and granted the prayed relief (reproduced hereinabove). A perusal of the record reveals that on filing of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents/appellants, herein, filed the written statement, wherein, they taken the specific stance that the disputed land and structure has already been de-awarded vide notification dated 24.05.2013, hence the letter dated 06.02.2015, has rightly been issued for recovery of the compensation amount pertaining to de-awarded land. The respondents, herein, have not rebutted the aforesaid version of the appellants by filing of the replication. The perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned High Court has failed to resolve the real controversy in view of the divergent pleadings of the parties and accepted the writ petition without considering the version of the appellants herein. Under law the judgment should be based on the material available on record and reasons must be an outcome of the said material and on the basis of such reasons conclusion should be drawn but in the impugned, judgment, these ingredients are missing, therefore, the same does not come within the purview of a judgment.
Reference may be made to a case reported as Hyderabad Development Authority vs. Abdul Majeed and others [PLD 2002 SC 84], wherein it has been held as under: "........It would be advantageous to note that judicial pronouncement (judgment) by a Judicial Officer should be based on the evidence/material available on record and reasons must be outcome of the evidence available on record and on the basis of such reasons conclusion should be drawn and if the order lacks of these ingredients it cannot be termed to be a judicial verdict (judgment) in stricto senso and at the best such pronouncement can be termed to be an administrative order incapable to settle controversy judicially between the parties."
Similarly in a case titled Ch. Muhammad Sadiq vs. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi [2008 SCR 406], while dealing with the proposition this Court has held in Para 9 as under:
9. It is the fundamental duty of the Court to consider all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Any omission on the part of Court would amount to failure to look into the disputed points and it is a vital error which could not be ignored. A judgment should contain (i) the detailed facts of the case, (ii) points in dispute between the parties (iii) contentions raised by, the learned counsel for the parties and (iv) opinion on the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. This view finds support from a case reported as Ghulam Abram and 5 others v. Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah and 5 others [PLD 1986 SC (AJ&K) 56] wherein at page 61 it has been observed as under:- "(a) In appealable cases it is always desirable that the Courts should pronounce their opinion on all the relevant points which arise or have been raised in a case. Omission on the part of the High Court, from whose orders the appeals are permissible to the Supreme Court, to decide all such points creates difficulty not only for us but also for the litigants. Omission on the part of the High Court to decide two vital points referred to above and our failure to look into them is a vital error and cannot be lightly ignored. The failure on the part of the High Court to decide these points, in fact, shows misapplication rather non-application of the mind. In Gouranga Mohan Sikandar v.
The Controller of Import and Export (1970 SCMR 323) Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rehman, CJ. (as he then was) considered the omission where the impugned order passed by the High Court did not disclose the application of the mind of the High Court to the merits of the case that was before it Relying on Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. v. The Province of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1959 SC (Pak)
272) his lordship remarked: `In view of the fact that a substantial question was raised by the applicant invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court it was as observed by Muhammad Munir, C.J., 'the undoubted duty of the High Court to state what the precise point raised by the applicant was and the grounds on which it was rejected. and the case was remanded.
(b) The High Court and the Supreme Court are Courts of record and both the Courts, and for that matter every Court, are expected to decide every important issue involved in a case. If the High Court leaves undecided any important matter, it may be said that it has decided the case in vacuum. Naturally, the Supreme Court in such cases would feel poor without the wisdom of the High Court and deciding a matter without having the view point of the High Court may not be desirable.
(c) It is our considered belief that the omission on the part of the High Court to apply its mind to the most important points had prejudiced the applicant's case inasmuch as the possibility cannot be excluded that had the-learned Judges of the High Court considered the point the conclusion might have been different. It is a substantial objection to the judgment and warrants review and remand of the case."
In another case reported as Muhammad Ayub & others vs. Ali Zaffar & others [2018 SCR 20], it has been observed by this Court as under: "7. According to the celebrated principle of law, the Courts have to decide the cases on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the material propositions raised and disputed in the light of proof brought on record ...."
After going through the impugned judgment we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not come within the purview of a judgment, thus, the same is not sustainable. As from the bare reading of the impugned judgment it is obvious that the learned High Court has not appreciated the material brought on record, therefore, in the interest of justice, the remand of the case is justified.
In view of the above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court with the direction to decide the same afresh in the light of the pleadings of the parties. No order as to costs.