This revision petition is directed against an order of Mr. Muhammad Hussain Pervaiz, District Judge, Jhang, dated 13-7-1977. Arming the order of a Civil Judge, Chiniot, whereby in a pending suit, he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of an interim injunction. The suit which is pending was instituted by the petitioner to pre-empt a sale of land made in favour of respondent No. 1. While the suit was pending the land in dispute was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, for purposes of Pakistan Air Force, which is shown as respondent No. 2 in this Revision Petition.
2. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made an application before the trial Court under the provisions of Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. For the grant of an interim injunction, restraining respondent No. 1 from receiving compensation for the acquired land. The application was dismissed by the trial Court.
3. On petitioner's appeal, the learned District Judge observed that the suit filed by the petitioner had not yet been decreed and that it was premature to say that it would ultimately be decreed; that even if it was ultimately to be found that the petitioner had a right to be substituted for the respondent as owner of land, the question of receiving the price of land was different; and that no irreparable loss would be occasioned to the petitioner, if the respondent was allowed to receive compensation from the department which could always be recovered back from him. The District Judge dismissed the appeal with these observations.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she being the nearest heir of the vendor, prima facie, she bad a very good case to pre-empt the property, and since the land was acquired during the pendency of the litigation, her rights could not be affected by the acquisition. It was also contended that if interim injunction was not granted in her favour, it would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that since there is dispute between the parties about title to receive compensation for the land, in view of section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act the Collector has to deposit the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 A of the Act can be made. He contends that there was under the circumstance no necessity to pass any interim orders because machinery was already provided for the petitioner to redress her grievances. It was now for her t approach the proper authorities.
6. I agree with this submission. If the Land Acquisition Collector has made his award he must act in accordance with law and deposit the compensation in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
7. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the property in dispute has ceased to remain pre-emptible on account of having been acquired by the Government, and that no order should be passed restraining the respondent from receiving compensation for the land I hold that for purposes of a stay order this question need not be considered at this stage.
8. In view of my finding that the Collector should deposit the compensation in a Court of competent jurisdiction, I set aside the orders made by the Court below and direct that respondent No. I shall not receive any compensation in respect of the disputed land from the authorities, during the pendency of the suit. The parties already have a right to approach the Acquisition Collector in this behalf.
9. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted, but in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.