2018 PLP 81 (CLCN)

ALI BAIG, J.

This civil first appeal is directed against the impugned judgment/decree dated 24.3.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Gilgit whereby the learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. Briefly narrate facts of the case re that plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 27,94,824/- against the present appellants in the trial court on account of compound interest at the rate of 8% from 05.5.2006 to payment of compensation amount i.e. 14.7.2011 with profit at the bank rate from institution of suit till payment/realization of compound interest.

3. The present respondents being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing their joint written statements in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and they have also denied the averments made in the plaint. The present respondents/plaintiffs have also filed rejoinder to the written statement.

4. On the basis of divergent pleading of the parties the learned trial court framed as many as 13 issues including issue of relief.

5. After framing of issues the learned trial court directed the parties to produce their evidence. Accordingly the plaintiff/respondent No.1 got recorded his own statement before the learned trial court and plaintiff/respondent No.2 has relied upon the statement of the respondent/plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs/respondents have also produced documentary evidence Exhs-P/1 to P/8.

6. The defendants/appellants have produced one D.W namely Bubul Jan Patwari besides recording of the statement of their departmental representative in the trial court. The defendants/appellants have also produced some documents Exh-D/1 to D/4 as documentary evidence.

7. On conclusion of trial the learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs vide impugned judgment/decree dated 24-3-2016.

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfaction with the impugned judgment/decree the appellants have preferred this civil first appeal before this court.

9. The learned Additional Advocate General G.B. and the learned Legal Adviser appearing on behalf of the G.B. PWD/appellant No.3 contended that the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court is contrary to the law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Additional Advocate General and legal Adviser G.B.PWD further argued that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter relating to compound interest and only Referee Judge is competent to deal with matters relating to Land Acquisition, hence the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment/decree without having jurisdiction.

10. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs supported the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court by contending that since the plaintiffs/respondents have not challenged the award dated 7th July, 2011 passed by the Collector Land Acquisition Gilgit Exh-P/5, and the plaintiffs have sought compound interest in the suit admissible under section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain/adjudicate upon the instant matter as such the learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the present respondents/plaintiffs.

11. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record with their able assistance.

12. From the perusal of the record it transpires that the plaintiffs/ respondents have sought compound interest on the compensation amount from the date of acquisition of land of the plaintiffs/respondents till payment of compensation amount as provided under section 34, Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Admittedly the land of the plaintiffs/respondents was acquired by the respondents for construction of road at Gilgit in the year 2006 as evident from documents Exh-P/2 to Exh-P/4 and award was passed on 7th July 2011, as evident from Exh-P/5 and compensation amount was paid to the plaintiffs/respondents on 7th July 2011 as evident from Acquaintance Roll Exh-P/6.

13. Moreover, representative of appellants/defendants Mr. Amjad Qureshi N.T. and D.W namely Bulbul Jan Patwari have also admitted in their cross-examination that land of the plaintiffs/respondents was acquired in the month of May, 2006 and compensation amount was paid to the plaintiffs/respondents in the month of July 2011 after passing of the award. Hence it is admitted fact that the land of the plaintiffs was acquired in the year 2006 and award was passed on 7th July 2011 but the compound interest was not included in the aforesaid award by the Collector Land Acquisition Gilgit as required under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Here we would like to reproduce the provisions of section 34 of the aforesaid Act as under:- Section 34 Payment of Interest. When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of eight per centum per annum from the time so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.

14. From bare/plain reading of aforesaid provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 it reveals that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to get compound interest 8% per annum from the time of taking of possession of their land until it shall have been so paid or deposited.

15. Main thrust of contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General G.B. and Mr. Zakria Ahmed Legal Advisor is that the plaintiffs/respondents have not filed suit/reference petition in the Court of the learned Referee/District Judge Gilgit under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was the proper forum to redress the grievances of the plaintiffs and relief claim through the civil suit is illegal as Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter regarding compound interest.

16. We have given our consideration to this contention/point raised by the learned Additional Advocate General G.B. For elaboration we would like to reproduce the provisions of section 18 of Land Acquisition Act as under:-

18. Reference to Court...(1) 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 measurements of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

17. From the bare reading of the above referred provisions of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 it reveals that reference under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act shall be filed in the Court of Referee Judge of concerned District by a person who has not accepted the award. In the present case the respondents/land owners have accepted the award and have not challenged the award and they have no case for enhancement of compensation amount nor have they disputed apportionment of compensation amount among the interested persons. The plaintiffs/ respondents have simply claimed compound interest from the date of taking possession of their land till payment of compensation amount to them. As such the respondents can file civil suit or writ petition for obtaining compound interest. Hence we do not agree with this contention of the learned Additional Advocate General and Legal Adviser of G.B.PWD. If concerned Collector fails to pay compound interest under section 34 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 to the effectees/land owners from taking possession of the acquired land till payment of compensation amount, the concerned party can file regular civil suit in the Civil Court or can invoke the Writ jurisdiction of High Court/Chief Court. Our this view is fortified by the view expressed by the Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court of Gilgit Baltistan in a Judgment reported in 2008 CLC page 1247.

18. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently the impugned judgment/decree passed by the trial court is maintained.

19. However, before parting with this judgment, the learned Trial/Executing Court is directed to reassess/re-compute the compound interest through an expert officer of National bank of Pakistan Main Branch Gilgit at the time of execution of decree/judgment. File after due completion be consigned to record room. ZC/161/GB Appeal dismissed.