1986 PLP 2077 (MLD)

SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Muzaffarabad, dated the 16th of July, 1999.

2. The brief facts of the case are that immovable property situated in villages Chattar Domel, Garhi Dopatta, Kham Drang and Muzaffarabad City was in the possession of Army and consequently, acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the same was acquired by the Government. The respondents initiated a reference which was consequently made to the District Judge and the learned District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation. The present appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and decree of the District Judge where by the compensation amount was enhanced.

3. A preliminary objection was raised that appeal was incompetent and was not properly constituted because land was acquired by the Government and it was only the Government who was competent to appeal and not the Army Authorities. We have given our earnest consideration to the matter. It has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the land was acquired for the benefit of the Army and compensation amount is also to be paid out of the Army funds. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Army being aggrieved party is competent to appeal. It may be observed here that under section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, the local authority or a company concerned for whose benefit the land is acquired may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation but such local authority or company or any other agency is not competent to initiate reference under section

18. It may be observed that, under the aforesaid provisions party which initiates reference is akin to the position of a plaintiff while the position of opposite party is that of a defendant. The Legislature gave right of adducing evidence to local authority etc., for whose benefit the land is acquired, before the Collector but a right to initiate reference has been denied to .the local authority or other agency. It follows from this that if a local authority or agency is deprived of the right to initiate reference it cannot be said that such authority has power to prefer an appeal. Because this will result in a contradictory position. It is well-settled principle of law that appeal is continuation of a suit or for that matter a reference. If a party is not competent to initiate reference it is illogical to hold that such party has right to go in appeal. The matter came up for consideration in a case reported as A I R 1929 Lah. 10 wherein the Government acquired a plot of land for the District Board and the District Board appealed against the award allowing compensation to the owners of the plot. An objection was raised that only the Government i.e. the Secretary to the State and not the District Board for whose benefit the plot was acquired, was competent to appeal. It was held by Division Bench that the appeal was incompetent because it was not preferred by the Government. Another case in which the matter came up for consideration is P L D 1968 Kar. 126 wherein the land was acquired for the benefit of the WAPDA and no appeal was filed against the award 'by the Government. But WAPDA, applied for being impleaded as respondent on the ground that it was WAPDA which had to pay the compensation money and as such, even though the Government had not appealed the WAPDA might be impleaded as respondent. While, dealing with the proposition, the learned Judge reproduced from the commentaries by J.P. Singhal which is as under:

"No local authority or -company is compelled to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act. If it can procure any land which it is desirous to acquire more cheaply by private negotiations, it is entirely at liberty', to do $o, but if it elects to set in motion the special powers given to 'Government for public objects it can expect no higher privileges and powers than those given to Government itself. Thus, the interests of the local authority must be subservient to that of Government and it would be dangerous to allow private individuals, local authorities and companies to interfere in a proceeding under Part III of the Act. Under such circumstances if Government declines to prefer an appeal the local authority cannot be permitted to do so except in case of patent injustice." Consequently, the 'application by WAPDA for being impleaded as party ire the proceedings was rejected. Because it was held that WAPDA was not competent to initiate or to come up in appeal when the Government had not done so. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid authorities and hold that it was the Government only which was competent to prefer an appeal against the award and not the military authorities. Hence, the appeal being improperly constituted, is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T. Appeal dismissed.