MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J. -- This revision petition is directed against the judgment/decree dated 24.3.1991 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Islamabad reversing the judgment of the Civil Judge, Islamabad dated 13.3.1990.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that House No. 106 situate in village Sheikhpur Tehsil and District Islamabad was acquired for C.D.A. Vide Directive No. 117, dated 7.12.1968. The Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad announced the award on 2.7.1979 and assessed the compensation as Rs. 18,550/- under Section 28 of the C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960. The compensation was awarded in the name of Muhammad Hanif son of Rustam Ali, the present petitioner. Mst. Sakina Bibi-respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner, C.D.A., who vide his order dated 16.5.1982 remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for passing a speaking order. On remand the learned Deputy Commissioner dismissed the review application of Mst.
Sakina Bibi-respondent on 26.12.1982. An appeal was filed before the. Commissioner, Islamabad under Section 36 of the C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960 who directed the parties on 6.2.1984 to approach the Civil Court on the ground that it was a case of conflicting claim and conflicting right which require elaborate examination of rights and liabilities of the parties.
Muhammad Hanif-plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit on 10.7.1984 before the Civil Judge, Islamabad and Mst. Sakina Bibi etc. Filed a suit on 13.5.1987, for recovery of Rs. 18,550/- as compensation for the said house No. 106. Both the suits were consolidated. The following consolidated issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit property is accordingly described in the plaint? OPP.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 18,550/- as compensation for the acquisition of house in suit? OPP.
(3-A) Whether the suit of Sakina Bibi is not maintainable? OPP.
(3-B) Whether Mst. Sakina Bibi has no cause of action? OPD.
(3-C) Whether Sakina Bibi is entitled to recovery of Rs. 18,550/- as compensation for the use and occupation of the property? OPP.
(4) Relief.
The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 13.3.1990 decreed the suit of Muhammad Hanif- plaintiff/petitioner and dismissed the suit filed by Mst. Sakina Bibi etc. Two appeals were filed by Mst. Sakina Bibi etc., before the District Judge, Islamabad which came up for hearing before learned Addl. District Judge, Islamabad who vide his judgment dated 24.3.1991, allowed the appeal, decreed the suit of the respondent-Mst. Sakina Bibi etc. And dismissed the suit of petitioner- Muhammad Hanif.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, on the grounds of non-reading and misreading of evidence. Notices were issued to the respondents for 23.7.2001. But none has entered appearance since morning to defend the revision petition. They are proceeded ex-parte.
4. The dispute in this case essentially relates to the apportionment of compensation as to the persons to whom the same is payable. Under Section 28(i.e) of the C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960 the apportionment of such compensation. Among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land of whom, or of whose claims, he has information is to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner. Against this order an appeal is competent under Section 36 of the C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960 before the Commissioner. Under sub-section (5) of the same section the order of the Commissioner passed on appeal is final and cannot be called in question in any Court. Unlike Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation cannot be referred by the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner to ' Court'.
5. The Deputy Commissioner and the authority has ample power under Section 36(4), of the C.D.A.
Ordinance, 1960 to recover any amount paid to any person which is found not to be due or in excess of the amount he is entitled to under the award, the same is recoverable by the authority and the Deputy Commissioner can call upon such person to refund it.
6. In my view the learned Commissioner could not shirk his responsibility of deciding the question of apportionment of compensation to the parties and shift the same to the Civil Court. If this is allowed it would open the flood gate of litigation regarding apportionment of compensation before the Civil Courts. The Civil Courts tiave the jurisdiction only to see whether the orders ,are passed in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance or not. No such violation has been alleged in both the suits filed by both the parties. Both the Courts below could not arrogate the jurisdiction regarding the apportionment of compensation to the parties.
7. For what has been stated above, the judgments of both the Courts below dated 24.3.1991 and 13.3.1990 are set aside. The plaints of both the parties are rejected. Resultantly, the appeal of Mst.
Sakina Bibi etc.-respondents shall be deemed to be pending before the Commissioner, C.D.A., Islamabad who shall decide the same in accordance with law preferably within three months.