2013 PLP 2834 (YLR)

SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.

Through this revision petition the petitioner has called in question legality of judgment and decree dated 7-6-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.

2. Succinctly, the respondent filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction alleging that he being owner of certain land in Mauza Kharrak was entitled to exempt plot against the land acquired by LDA for development of Allama Iqbal Town Scheme. After framing necessary issues and recording evidence of the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19-3-2001 against which the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 7-6-2005; hence this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while setting aside the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court the Appellate Court has not given any plausible reason; that as no award was announced in favour of the respondent therefore he was not entitled to any exempt plot; that the respondent has already sold his holding from Mauza Kharrak as is evident from Record of Rights (Exh.P-1) whereupon the Patwari concerned has given note that respondent has sold his share; that if the respondent had any grievance he could make an effort before the tribunal concerned; that the petitioner is only acquiring agency and has nothing to do with the owners rather the authority is bound to give exempt plot to the owners as per award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector; that the plaintiff/respondent never appeared in the witness box rather his case was pleaded by a sub-attorney appointed by a person who was constituted as special attorney by the plaintiff/respondent and that the suit filed by the respondent was time-barred.

4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the property was inherited by the respondent and he is still owner of a certain chunk of land; that as no notice was given under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondent could not agitate the matter before the tribunal and that filing of application by the respondent on 1-4-1977 for exemption is also admitted by P.W.2, Muhammad Arif Butt, Senior Clerk.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents annexed with this petition.

6. The respondent filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to exempt plot on the basis of his application dated 1-4-1977. The land mentioned in the head-note of the suit is 21-1/2 Marlas. According to Exh.P-1, being relied upon by the petitioner though the respondent sold his share of land in Mauza Kharak, however, it has clearly been mentioned that he is entitled to 19-Marlas of land being 1/8th share in Shamlat. In this backdrop the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was not owner of any land at the time of acquisition stands belied from the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner itself

7. Now coming to the question of limitation that receiving of application from the respondent by the department is admitted by P.W.1 and the respondent had every right to institute declaratory suit whenever he felt that the opponents were not going to accede to his request or there is an attack against his rights. It is admitted position that no order was passed by the LDA authorities on the application submitted by the respondent, thus, the respondent rightly opted to file a suit which was legally entertained and decided by the courts below.

8. Now coming to the petitioner's contention that the petitioner was bound only to give exempt plot to those persons whose names were present in the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, suffice it to observe that when the LDA has acquired the land owned by the respondent they cannot wriggle out of their duty to give exempt plot to him especially when the land owned by the respondent was included in the award pursuant whereof LDA took possession of the land and co-sharers of the respondent have already been compensated.

9. As far as plea of the petitioner that the plaintiff/respondent did not enter in the witness box rather his case was pleaded by someone else is concerned, suffice it to observe that when the law permits a party to pursue his cause through another person the objection raised by the learned counsel is worthless.

10. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. MH/L-6/L Appeal dismissed.