P L D 2006 Lahore 506 (PLP)

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

This is appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali whereby he decided the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 11-7-1994. The land in dispute was acquired for the benefit of the appellant to set up an industry i.e. cement factory award dated 24-10-1984 was announced. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded the respondents took steps for reference which according to the learned counsel for the appellant was not entertained by the Collector as the same was barred by time and was then instituted by the respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali. The same was contested on number of grounds including that they had accepted and received the compensation and that it was barred by time. Following issues were framed:-- (1) Whether the petitioner has been wrongly compensated by the respondent? If so, what is the proper compensation? OPP (2) Whether the petition is time-barred? OPR (3) Whether the reference has not properly submitted? If, so with what effect? OPR (4) Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection Nos.3 to 5 of the reply? OPR (5) Whether Sultan, Younus and Ghulam Hussain petitioners had died prior to the institution of this reference? OPR (6) Relief. After that the evidence had been led by the parties the learned Referee Court disposed of issues Nos. 2 to 5 as "not pressed". On issue No. I the finding was against the respondents as it was observed that "The inadequacy of the compensation was to be established by the respondents for which there is no sufficient evidence" and came to the conclusion that "The petitioners having failed to establish their case, the issue is answered against them". Suffice it to observe that the onus of the said issue was upon the respondents. However, while dealing with issue No.6 i.e. "relief" quite surprisingly, the learned trial Judge ordered the enhancement of the compensation by 40% in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges on the enhanced sum and 8% compound interest from the time of announcement of award till the recovery of whole decretal amount. There is serious exception being taken to the order passed by the learned trial Court inasmuch as that issues including the limitation and the competency of the reference were not decided at all and were disposed of as "not pressed" and despite the finding against the respondents qua issue No.l relief was still granted by making substantial enhancement in the compensation which shows inconsistency in the approach. of the learned trial Court to the matter in issue. The approach adopted by the learned Judge indeed is self-contradictory, for, if the respondents had failed to prove issue No.l there could be no basis or justification for any order of enhancement of compensation. The judgment rendered by the trial Court can by no standard be regarded as consistent with the evidence or the law on the subject. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel that Issues Nos. 2 to 5 had to be adverted to by the trial Court which concerned with the very maintainability of the reference and had not been abandoned by the appellant. Suffice it to observe that the framers of the Code of Civil Procedure had quite precisely laid down the manner and procedure of a trial stage-wise. On conclusion of the trial the Court is required to record judgment for which the guidelines are mentioned in Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment in the instant case did not conform to the provisions of law. It has repeated been reiterated by the superior Courts that the judgment is to be based on evidence in the case and no other material or factor should be taken into consideration. While recording finding on issue No.l the Court has clearly held that the respondents failed to produce any evidence, but still granted relief by making enhancement in the compensation under issue No.6 which was about "relief". Needless to observe that the relief had to follow the findings on the issues and should have been consistent with those findings but it is not so in the instant case. Such a disposition of the matter cannot indeed qualify to be a judgment in law and is liable to be set aside. Reference may be made to Muhammad Siddiq v. Syed Ali Shah and another PLD 1976 Lah. 293; Syed Aulad Ali Shah Gilani v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary and another PLD 1987 SC(AJ&K) 1 and Muhammad Nazir v. Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others PLD 1987 SC(AJ&K)

16. We have thus reached the conclusion that by setting aside the judgment whereby the reference was disposed of the matter should be remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali for decision afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs. M.B.A./M-198/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.