' The petitioners have assailed an order dated 11-11-1996 of learned Additional District Judge, Haripur who is dealing with the subject-matter on reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be referred as act). In this respect they have filed the instant revision petition.
2. The brief facts lying adjudication before the Judge in reference are in respect of over payment made by the respondents to the petitioners due to an alleged foul play between the concerned authorities resulting in loss of huge affront to the Government exchequer. The modus operandi, said to have been adopted by the concerned authorities, was, that the number of trees standing on the acquired land were wrongly shown to be more, in award. Feeling aggrieved the acquiring agency namely WAPDA through Provincial Government has filed an objection to the award.
Pending proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur, a demand/recovery started for the withdrawal of over-paid amount from the petitioners. It was in this background of the facts that an application was moved under the 'Act' before the Court of Additional District Judge by the petitioner on which order dated 11-11-1996 was passed.
3. Aggrieved of the order, the petitioners filed the instant revision inter alia objecting to the authority of the Court of Additional District Judge for passing impugned order which in view of the petitioners was without jurisdiction and that tantamounts to the execution of order without completing the trial, hence illegal.
4. What is said in the order dated 11-11-1996 is that over payment made to the petitioners may be realized subject to, of course, in accordance with finding given by the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur which was in the following terms: "There is, however, apprehension of non-payment of delaying the payment of the suit amount.
Therefore, for the safe administration of justice, I deem it proper to order that in case of decree the respondents would be bound to pay not only the principal amount but to pay the mark-up/interest to the objectors since the payment of amount to the respondents till realizing of the amount at the rate formulated by National Bank of Pakistan in accordance with the period for which the amount remains in possession/custody of the respondents. By period I mean the period which has been formulated by the National Bank of Pakistan for the payment of various proportions of interest/mark-up, with the period the mark-up interest will change and the National Bank authority will work out the total interest in compound etc. And after that the respondents will be liable to the total payment of principal as well as interest amount. I further order that the respondents shall provide guarantee up to the double amount of the suit one to this Court within period of 15 days, otherwise the objectors would be entitled to recover the suit amount from the respondents. To come up for evidence of the objectors on 23-12-1996. The objectors are directed to deposit diet money etc. Of the official witnesses within 7 days and then they be summoned for the date fixed."
5. When this petition was taken up for hearing this Court observed, if a revision was maintainable under section 115, C.P.C. In respect of the matter which is sub judice before the Land Acquisition Judge. A pre-admission notice was given to the respondents in the revision to argue on the point of maintainability.
6. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that as an appeal against the order of award or any part of the award, of the 'Court', lies to the High Court as such the Court of Additional District Judge while exercising power under section 18 of the 'Act' is a Court subordinate to High Court. Section 115, C.P.C. Empowers the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction in respect of an order of the Court subordinate to it. The fact that an appeal can be filed against the order of the Court, coupled with the fact that by virtue of section 53 of the 'Act' Civil Procedure Code has been made applicable in the proceedings before the Court of Additional District Judge dealing with the reference, will confer revisional jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on a case of Makhan Lal and others v. Secretary of State AIR 1934 Allahabad 260.
7. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was not acceptable to the learned counsel for the respondents who was of the view that such-like interim orders are immune from the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. More so he was of the view that as huge amount has been overpaid to the petitioners hence the Government exchequer has suffered a tremendous financial loss which was according to him due to a foul play on the Bart of the Patwari and concerned authorities whose report culminated in the Award of respondent No,3. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents before this Court is mere factual and not legal, and no law was referred in support thereof. To the contrary when asked if revision is maintainable against the order of a Court, though subordinate to the High Court, but which has not finally decided the 'case' the reply furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in affirmative by placing reliance on a case of Pakistan Fisheries Ltd., Karachi etc. v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 109 wherein it was held 'revision' is provided against a "case decided"-- Expression "case decided" can be construed as a decision given in respect of any state of fats after judicially considering the same which need not necessarily dispose of the whole matter in suit pending before a Court subordinate to the High Court". In view of the case-law, facts and circumstances stated above it is but clear that this Court can exercise revisional powers in respect of the orders made by the Additional District Judge seized of the matter by virtue of section 18 of the 'Act'.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case it will be in the interest of justice that at in order to secure the over payment (if any) made to the respondents in reference, can be secured by directing the respondents/petitioners herein, to furnish bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge who is ' 'seized of the matter, double the amount of over payment. The order of the '
Additional District Judge to the extent of mark-up/interest is set aside with the direction that he shall dispose of the matter within two months. This revision !Petition is competent to the extent of maintainability, but is dismissed, as there are no merits in it, with the modification of the order of the learned Additional district Judge as given above.