It is an appeal by the Province of the Punjab from a decree dated 14-11-1982 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali, in pursuance of a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
2. Counsel for the respondents contended that the appeal did not lie. He placed reliance upon Pir Khan through his Legal Heirs v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad and others (PLD 1987 SC 485) wherein it was held that since the Government could not ask for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 a priori it could not prefer an appeal from a decree passed on such a reference. The dictum seems to be fully applicable to the case in hand inasmuch as the appellant- province was aggrieved of the increased rate o compensation awarded against it by the learned Senior Civil Judge in pursuance of the reference. The appeal was, therefore, not maintainable.
3. Attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to the express provisions of Section 54 of the Act maintaining that the order passed on reference being a decree was amenable to appeal by either side. He laid stress upon the phrase "subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to appeals from the original decree ....An appeal shall only lie...", to urge that the decree was like any decree passed under the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the right of appeal arose in favour of the affected party. He contended that there was no warrant for restricting the appeal only in favour of the land--owner and denying it to the Government. The argument apparently is not without substance but it was taken note of by the Supreme Court in the precedent case. In fact the counter-argument that a party having no right to ask for reference under Section 18, would have no further right of appeal prevailed. The genesis for holding so is that order passed by the Collector was final subject, of course, to a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference as already pointed out could have been initiated only by the land-owner and not the Government. Therefore; finality of the order of the Collector subject to the aforementioned exception was taken to be key point for holding that the Government would not be competent to challenge the decree in appeal. In any case this Court is bound by the ratio enunciated by the highest Court of the country. Any argument against it could not be entertained here.
4. As a result the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./G-256/L.