1. ' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore on 22-5-1989.
2. The contents of the plaint reveal that petitioner purchased two plots each measuring 1 Kanal bearing Khasra No.876 in Village Hanjarwal, Tehsil and District Lahore from Mst. Bilqees Barkat wife of Barkat Ali vide sale-deed dated 7-10-1976 which was later amended on 18-11-1976 and registered on 20-11-1976. Muhammad Sahrif and Mirza Muhammad Rafiq also filed suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore on the said date. The suits were consolidated by the trial Court. The respondents filed written statement and controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff have no cause of action against the defendant No.2? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff is owner of one Kanal land described in the plaint and entitled to 16 Marlas exempted plot and receive compensation for 14 Marlas?
(7) Relief.
3. ' The plaint was returned to the petitioner under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. By the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27-3-1996.
4. ' The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge Lahore who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17-5-2001. Hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have erred in law to return the plaint of the petitioner in view of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act without adverting to proviso 3 of section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further submits that both the Courts below have returned the plaint to the petitioner under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. In violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. He further submits that both the Courts below have wrongly relied upon Abdul Manan's case (1990 CLC 1377) wherein proviso 3 of section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act was not considered and that in the cited case facts are entirely different as Abdul Manan had received compensation under protest and challenged the same without availing remedy available to him under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General and learned counsel of respondent No.2 submit that both the Courts below have rightly returned the plaint to the petitioner in view of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which is a complete Code and the learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the judgments of the Courts below.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- ' Section 18(1)
5. "Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested."
6. ' Proviso 3 of section 31(2)
7. ' Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability or any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto."
8. Mere reading of aforesaid provisions clearly reveals that Legislature in its wisdom has inserted proviso in section 31(2) which has been placed after section 18. It is settled principle of interpretatidn that latter section will hold the field. In case the contention of the learned counsel of the respondents be accepted then proviso of section 31(2) becomes redundant which is not in consonance with the basic principle of interpretation. It is a golden principle of interpretation to reconcile and harmoniously interpret the provisions of Act instead of rendering one of the provisions of the Act as redundant. It is also settled principle of law that Act be read as an organic whole as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgmens:-- ' Lalit Mohan Das's case (PLD 1957 SC 219). Hakim Ali's Case (PLD 1992 SC 595).
9. ' The proposition of law in this case has been finally decided by this Court in Khanun and others v.
10. Ghulam Muhammad (1994 CLC 987). The relevant observation is as follows:-- "It was laid down in the said case that whether compensation had been awarded to a wrong person contrary to the terms of the Collector's award a civil suit by a rightful claimant was not barred under proviso 3 of subsection 2 of section 31."
11. ' The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by the law laid down by this Court and the Peshawar High Court in the following judgments:-- ' Bago's case (AIR 1926 Lahore 321)
12. ' Syed Iftikhar Ahmed Shah' s case (PLD 1967 Peshawar 151)
13. ' Shri Deo Jankiramji Bindraban Saugor v. Ramchand (160 Indian Cases 1013)
14. It is pertinent to mention here that judgments of both the Courts below are in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. Therefore, both the Courts have committed material irregularity as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- ' Khanwal Nain's case (PLD 1983 SC 53) Shaukat Nawaz's case (1988 SCM R 851)
15. ' It is pertinent to mention here that judgment relied by the Courts below is distinguished on facts and law as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, i.e. In Aabdul Manan's case supra he had received compensation under protest and challenged the same without availing remedy available to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act whereas in the present case third party has received compensation in place of the petitioner.
16. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is accepted. The suit of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the trial Court. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30-4-2004 who is directed to proceed in the mater strictly in accordance with law.