2011 PLP 1160 (SCMR)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

The land in question was acquired. It is the case of the appellant that he was owner of the suit land along with the building existing thereupon which before the acquisition was purchased from Munir Ahmed respondent/defendant No.3. He has only been compensated for the superstructure. In the suit filed by him primarily against the Province of Punjab and Land Acquisition Collector, it was claimed that on the receipt of the development charges, he may be allowed to retain the suit land (underneath the structure) and that respondents (land acquisition collector) may be directed to receive back the compensation paid towards the superstructure. In this case Munir Ahmed from whom the appellant states to have purchased the plot was arrayed as pro forma respondent and no relief was sought against him. It may further be added that respondent No.3 in his written statement has conceded the claim of the appellant and in his statement before the Court, this also seems to be the position.

2. Be that as it may, the suit has been decreed by the trial Court. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed appeal against that judgment and decree which was accepted and Civil Revision filed by the appellant before the learned High Court has failed. It has been categorically held by the learned High Court that the petitioner has not been able to prove the sale of the suit land in his favour by Munir Ahmed respondent No.3, resultantly he would not be entitled to any compensation qua the land acquired or for any alternate allotment of the plot. It may not be irrelevant to mention that to our query the petitioner's counsel has not been able to establish from the present record if, a legal title has ever passed in his favour, because there is no sale deed or mutation to that effect. He simply is relying on the admission of Munir Ahmed and at the best is canvassing for an equitable title which obviously cannot be enforced against respondents Nos.1 and

2. Leave in this case was granted on 23-1-2007 in the terms:-- "For the facts and contentions recorded by this Court on 14-12-2006, leave to appeal is granted. Since a short question is involved, therefore, appeal is directed to be listed for hearing on the present record within three months. However, the parties remain at liberty to furnish further documents if they so desired."

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that at the time of acquisition the land actually was owned by the appellant as has been conceded by Munir Ahmed in his written statement and his statement before the trial Court, resultantly the appellant was entitled to the exemptions of the plot being in his ownership and also to compensation etc. When questioned, he stated that infact Munir Ahmed had received compensation/alternate plot, thus in the situation he has no answer to provide, if in the situation and the nature of the suit in its present form any relief can be granted to the appellant by this Court, particularly for the reason that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not obliged to give compensation or exempt the plot twice for the land once acquired. And when according to the case of the appellant it is respondent No.3 who had received compensation/alternate plot, then at the most the appellant can maintain an action against respondent No.3, but because neither a case has been set up in his plaint nor such relief in this regard has been sought, in the instant lis, therefore, we cannot help him in this regard. However, it is clear that the appellant has no cause of action against respondents Nos.1 and 2.

4. This appeal having no substance is dismissed. No order as to costs. S.A.K./A-21/SC Appeal dismissed.