1. ' In this matter Mr. Faiz Muhammad Soomro, the learned counsel for the private respondents Nos.2 to 5 has raised two objections about the maintainability of the present Revision Application and the reference made by the Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, Badin to the District Judge. He has further submitted that the learned District Judge had rightly rejected the said reference as the same is not in accordance with the provisions of section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the present case are that the agricultural land admeasuring 1-25 acres in Deh Talhar Taluka and District Badin which were owned by the present respondents Nos.2 to 6, was acquired for the purposes of drainage scheme of the Public Health Engineering Division, Badin. The land acquisition proceedings were taken by the Assistant Commissioner who was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer, Badin and initially an award was passed by him on 20-7-1989 whereby he awarded an amount of Rs,302,818 to the private owners of the land. Award of the Land Acquisition Officer shows that only a sum of Rs,28,016 has been paid by the Public Health Engineering Division, Badin and they are required to pay a sum of Rs,2,74,802 for the purpose of disbursement to the owners of the land. However, the Executive Engineer of Public Health Engineering Division wrote a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer on 7-8-1989 wherein he raised certain objections with regard to the above award. The Land Acquisition Officer then treating this letter as reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act forwarded the same to the Court of District Judge, Badin under section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge, Badin after hearing the D.G.P. and the Advocate for the private parties rejected the reference on the ground that same is not in accordance with the provisions of section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. Being aggrieved from the said order the present Revision Application has been preferred in this Court on 2-10-1990. The matter came up earlier for hearing before this Court at Hyderabad when it was partly heard and was adjourned. Again the matter came up for hearing on 27-9-1992 before this Bench at Karachi when the question of maintainability was raised by Mr. Faiz Muhammad Soomro, learned counsel for the private respondents and in presence of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Additional Advocate- General Sindh, who had attended the matter and the same was adjourned for today. Today, Mr. K.M. Nadeem, Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh has appeared on behalf of the present applicant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first point to be considered is that before the District Judge learned District Government Pleader had conceded to the position that no reference under section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act could be made by the Provincial Government through the Land Acquisition Officer but the said subsection (3) provides for a direct reference by the Provincial Government to the Court. He has referred to the language of the subsections (1) and
(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. The other objection raised by Mr. Faiz Muhammad Soomro is that this order is appealable under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and in case Provincial Government was aggrieved from the impugned order they could have filed an appeal and not a Revision Application. He has referred to the case of Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Pakistan 1991 SCM R 2193 wherein it has been held by their Lordships as under:-- "The third contention of the learned Deputy Attorney-General that in the absence of right of appeal to the Federal Government or its acquiring department, the appeals filed in the High Court could be treated as Civil Revisions and on that account the decisions given by the High Court could be protected as within jurisdiction, also cannot prevail because the order against which the revision is said to be competent is an appealable order and in view of our decision in S.Azizul Hasan and another v. Malik Ghulam Muhammad 1971 SCM R 123 and Muhammad Ibrahim and another v. Group Captain Salehuddin and others 1987 SCM R 218 a revision would not be competent, the order being otherwise appealable."
4. ' Even otherwise the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. provide that a Revision Application would be filed where no appeal lies. In these circumstances this Revision Application on the face of it would not be maintainable.
5. ' However, an effort was made by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh appearing for the Provincial Government by requesting that this Revision Application be treated as an appeal. In the first instance in the abovesaid case of Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Pakistan this point has been resolved by the Honourable Supreme Court. Secondly, the award is for a sum of Rs,3 lacs and in case an appeal is to be filed then ad volerm court-fee stamp is to be paid which has not been paid by the present applicant. Even otherwise this preliminary objection was raised for the first time when the arguments were heard at Hyderabad on 3-6-1992 and since then no efforts were made by the applicant to pay the court-fee stamp, seek indulgence of the Court to condone the non-payment within time or to make an application for a conversion of .this Revision Application into an appeal.
6. This conduct on the part of the applicant speaks of the contumacy and mala fides. Accordingly, I dismiss this Revision Application as not maintainable. The interim orders passed earlier are recalled. However, there will be no order as to costs.