2010 PLP 1367 (YLR)

RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.

The appellants, namely, the Land Acquisition Collector, Pak Arab Refinery Ltd. and the Manager (Administration), Pak Arab Refinery Ltd., by filing this appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have assailed the judgment and decree dated 6-9-2006 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad, whereby he had enhanced the compensation of land from Rs.3,00,000 to Rs.4,50,000 per acre.

2. Precisely the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondents had filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenged the validity of award dated 10-8-1994 in respect of land comprising in Sq. Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 of Chak No.201/RB, Monza Targarh, Tehsil and District Faisalabad and had claimed that the property was very valuable having commercial status; that a road exists along with Killa Nos.22 to 25 of Square No.7 and on the side of Square Nos.8 and 9, but these killas have erroneously not been treated as on the front; that adjacent killas like killa No.22 of square No.6, killas Nos.2, 9, 12, 19, 18, 17, 16 and 20 of Square No.7 and other similarly located killas of Square Nos. 8 and 9 have also not been treated as on the front in the Award; the appellants contested the same by filing written statement in the reference; out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge framed six issues including that of relief and after recording evidence of both the sides, accepted the reference enhancing the price of the land acquired vide judgment and decree dated 6-9-2006. Being aggrieved thereof, the appellants have filed this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants when confronted with the proposition as to how the appeal by the acquiring agency being beneficiary of the acquired land is maintainable, he has not been able to satisfactorily answer the question.

4. It is settled principle of law that the appellants being beneficiary of the land acquired did not have any right or locus standi to challenge the compensation given to the deprived owners of the land by the competent Court and that the local authority or a company on whose behalf the land is acquired by the Collector has no right to file an appeal against a judgment arising out of the reference under section 18 of the Act. In the recent pronouncement made by the Honourable apex Court in the case of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission v. Land Acquisition Collector and others 2008 SCMR 1280, it was held that acquiring agency could neither file reference against award nor appeal against decision made in reference, but could become a party in reference proceedings before Referee Court and file cross-objections for reduction of compensation awarded by the Collector. The Honourable apex Court further goes on to observe that the acquiring agency could neither file independent reference nor avail remedy of constitutional petition against award except to avail such legal remedy of becoming a party and filing cross" objections in reference filed by the landowner against the award. Hence, following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, we are of the view that the present appeal is not competent. Reference can advantageously be made to the cases of Pir Khan through his legal heirs v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad and others PLD 1987 SC 485; Iftikhar Hussain Shah and others v. Pakistan through Secretary; Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others 1991 SCMR 2193; Land Acquisition Collector, Abbotabad and others v. Muhammad Iqbal and others 1992 SCMR 1245; Pakistan through Military Estate Officer Kharian Cantt and another v. Hayee Khan through legal heirs and 5 others PLD 1995 SC 418; Federation of Pakistan and another v. Abdul Hayee Khan and others 1996 SCMR 1389 and Defence Department of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Provincial of Punjab and another 2006 SCMR 402.

5. In the present cases, the acquiring authority had been made party to the lis, which had contested the reference by adducing evidence and the learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties had rightly enhanced the rate of the land acquired by the authority. After going through the record and the impugned judgment and decree, we have not been able to find any illegality much less any irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment and decree, which is based on valid and sound reasons.

6. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. M.H/L-29/L Appeal dismissed.