' In this civil revision petition, the only question involved is whether rejecting the prayer of the petitioners/respondents regarding non-maintainability of the objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the Acquiring Department i,e,, Director, Headquarters, C.R.B.C.
Project, WAPDA, D.I. Khan (respondent herein) suffers from any illegality.
2. With a view to appreciate the real point involved, it would be appropriate to give brief resume of the facts of the matter.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector, C.R.B.C, D.I.Khan (respondent No,2 herein) had acquired land measuring 1041 Kanals and 13 Marlas, situated in the locality of village Qayyum Nagar, Tehsil and District D.I.Khan for the purpose of "Construction of Flood Carrier Drain No,5" C.R.B.C. Stage-H, WAPDA, D.I. Khan through Award No,108, dated 24-7-1994. The said Collector awarded compensation to the tune of Rs,2,76,82,683.30 (two crore, seventy-six lace, eighty-two thousands, six hundred and eighty-three/thirty paisas) for the acquired land Rs,21,110 (Rupees twenty-one thousands, one hundred and ten) per Kanal.
4. Dissatisfied with the said Award, the acquiring Department (respondent No,1 herein) filed an objection petition before Land Acquisition Collector, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Land Acquisition Collector accordingly referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Judge in terms of section 18 of the said Act. The petitioners/respondents submitted an application for making him there a party to the said reference and the Land Acquisition Judge by his order dated 10-7-1996, accepted the said application and directed that Muhammad Parvez, Alamzeb, Jehanzeb and Mst. Amirzadi be arrayed as respondents in the main reference petition by making necessary entries in all the relevant record. Thereafter, the petitioners i,e,, Haji Muhammad Pervez etc., filed their written statement to the reference petition and raised quite a few legal and factual objections. Additionally, they submitted that the reference was not entertainable and prayed that the same be rejected.
5. Mr. Khuda Bakhsh Baloch, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Minhajuddin Alvi, Advocate, for respondent No,1, Mr. Amir Muhammad Khan, Advocate for respondent No,2, Mr. Shaukat Hayat Khan Khakwani, Advocate, for L.Rs, of respondent No,3 and Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Bangash, Advocate for respondents Nos.4 and 5, at length and have also gone through the record of the case with some degree of care.
6. The only question that falls for determination in this case is whether the Chief Engineer, WAPDA, C.R.B.C. Could file an objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Senior Civil Judge in her capacity as the Land Acquisition Judge based her findings, on the unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court and upheld by the august Supreme Court (Shariat Appellate Bench), and held that WAPDA could file objection petition and that the objection petition was maintainable which was to be treated as a petition by the Director, Headquarter C.R.B.C., WAPDA.
7. The findings of the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court and the august Supreme Court (Shariat Appellate Bench) were discussed by a Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court (1997 CLC 556) in case titled Military Estate Officer, Quetta Circle, Quetta Cantt.--Petitioner v. Assistant Commissionercum-Collector, Quetta and 4 others--Respondents, wherein it was held:-- "We order that the aforementioned sections of the Act shall be amended so, as to provide, for right of making reference, filing cross-objection and appeal to Federal Government or the concerned department of the Federal Government or of the Provincial Government as also the Company or the local authority for whose benefit the acquisition is made. In that context the proviso to section 50(2) of the Act shall be deleted."
8. The Land Acquisition Judge (Mrs. Zarqaish Sani) also reproduced the observations made by the Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court in the aforesaid case which are to the following effect:- "For the aforesaid reasons we declare, that omission to give right of making reference, filing cross- objections and appeal to the Federal Government or to the department of the Federal Government or a company or local authority for whose benefit land is acquired in sections 18(3) and (4), 22-A and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as well as depriving a company or a local authority of the right of appeal in proviso to section 50(2) of the Act are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam."
9. The view so taken by the Federal Shariat Court was upheld by the Shariat Appellate Banch of the august Supreme Court in Shariat Appeal No,7 of 1989, filed against the findings of the Federal Shariat Court in the above-quoted judgment. The extract from the findings of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court finds its place in the case mentioned in para. No,8 above, at page 559, which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:-- "The grounds which weighed with the Federal Shariat Court in making the recommendations are cogent and sound. The amendments in the aforesaid provisions of the Act would make the law more consistent and equitable, It is against all canons of principles and equity that the Provincial Government may have a right to refer the matter to the Court and file a cross-objection but the '
Federal Government and its department are not given such a right. It would amount to negation of justice and is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The wisdom behind such amendments would be to give all the parties a fair opportunity to prove regarding the reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded. A party who has to pay the money from its own funds should have been given a chance to adduce evidence for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation. The proposed amendments would advance remedy to an aggrieved party. It would be fair and just to give a right to make a reference file a cross-objection, lead evidence and file an appeal to those parties who have been denied such a right under sections 18, 22-A, 50 and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act."
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not question/controvert this legal proposition.
11. I am not oblivious of the various authorities of the superior Courts supporting the view-point of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent objector, for whose benefit the land was acquired, is not allowed to either file reference or come in appeal but in the light of the latest view of the august Supreme Court all the parties i,e,, a local authority/company/Provincial or Federal Government or their departments who have to pay the compensation from the Government's fund, have been brought at par with those whose lands were acquired, to make a reference under section 18 and to file an appeal with a view to give them a chance to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
12. On this view of the matter I find no substance in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed with costs. Record be sent back to L.A. Judge with the directions to dispose of this case within three months positively under intimation to my Private Secretary{{URDU TEXT}}.