IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, SUKKUR BENCH, SUKKUR

1st Civil Appeal No.D-31 of 2003

 

 

Appellants:                                        Province of Sindh and others through Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani, AAG

 

Respondents 2 & 3:                           Through Mr. Sarfraz A. Akhund, Advocate

Date of hearing:                                 14.10.2021

Date of decision:                                14.10.2021 

 

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J:              Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 12.02.2002 passed by Respondent No.1/Land Acquisition Officer, Rohri as well as order dated 13.09.2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge (Hudood) Sukkur, passed in Reference submitted under Section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby Suit bearing No. L.A. Suit No.08/2002, filed by the Appellants, was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, hence this appeal. 

 

 2.      Succinct facts of the case are that the government acquired the land for the purpose of Lift Channel at R.D-171 Nara Canal and in this regard award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 12.02.2002. While being aggrieved with the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer, present appellants preferred a reference, being L.A. Suit No.08/2002, presented by Executive Engineer Thar Division Mirpurkhas wherein comments and written statements were filed on behalf of Respondents; however an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was also filed by Respondents No.2 to 5, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge (Hudood) Sukkur, vide order dated 13.09.2003, whereby plaint of the Plaintiffs was rejected being barred under Section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. This appeal was dismissed by this court vide order dated: 24-02-2006 and the appellants challenged the said order before Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 480 of 2006, wherein Honourable Supreme Court by allowing the appeal set aside order of this court and remanded the ,matter to this court for passing a speaking order, vide order dated: 21-07-2011.  

 

3.       Learned AAG representing the Appellants, at the very outset, submits that learned trial Court erred in passing the impugned order dated 13.09.2003, whereby plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as at the time of rejection of plaint only the averments of the plaint are to be considered; that learned trial Court failed to consider that plaint is to be rejected rarely as matters are to be decided on merits instead to decide the same rather on technicalities; that learned trial Court also failed to consider that Province of Sindh is one of the Appellant in respect of aforesaid reference represented by their agent/ subordinate viz. Executive Engineer even otherwise Executive Engineer is also an officer of Provincial Government and he made such reference on behalf of Provincial Government, therefore, rejection of plaint is improper; that there was no ground on the basis of which plaint was to be rejected as matter was not barred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Lastly, he prayed that the impugned order of the trial court may be set-aside by allowing instant appeal. He relied upon the case of Wapda v. Major Ata Muhammad Khan and 8 others (1993 SCMR 181).

 

4.                On the other hand learned counsel for the private respondents contended that the reference so filed by the appellant was not in accordance with the provisions of section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, that the reference filed by the appellants  was not maintainable and was rightly rejected; that the land Acquisition Officer was not competent to file the reference in view of clear verdict in section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , only it was to be filed directly by the Government. Lastly, he prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.

 

5.                We have heard learned AAG for the appellant and learned counsel for the defendants and have gone through the available record with their able assistance.

 

6.                Record reflects that a reference was filed by the appellants through the land Acquisition officer before the District Court which was entertained and on application filed by the respondents it was rejected under order 7 rule 11 CPC. The reference can be filed by any party aggrieved with the award passed by the land acquisition officer but the procedure is provided separately for the aggrieved persons and for the government if aggrieved in section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as under:-    

 

“18. Reference to court. (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, weather his objection be to the measurement 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.

(2). The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made:-

(a). if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award:

(b). in other cases, within six weeks after receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award whichever period shall first expire.

(3). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 21, the Provincial Government may, if it has not accepted the award, refer the matter to the court within a period of six months from the date of announcement of the award: provided that court shall not entertain the reference unless in its opinion there is a prima facie case for inquiry into and determination of the objection against the award.”

 

7.                Form perusal of the section 18 (1) supra it appears that persons who have aggrieved from the award (other than the Provincial Government) may approach to the Collector with written application that his matter may be referred to the Court for determination for the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable of the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. However, section 18 (3) provides that the Provincial Government may, if it has not accepted the award, refer the matter to the Court. In the case in hand the matter was send to the Collector by the Provincial Government for its referral to the court and it was not send directly to the court in view of the clear provision under section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is well settled principle of interpretation law that “If the words of the Statute are themselves clear and unambiguous, no more is necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such a case best declare the intentions of legislature”, as held in the case of Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nasir Khan and others (2010 SCMR 1254).

          In another case of Ghulam Haider and others v. Murad through Legal Representatives and others (PLD 2012 SC 501), it is held as:-

“Where the plain language of a statute admits of no other interpretation then the intention of the legislature conveyed through such language is to be given its full effect.”

 

8.                In the present case reference has not been made by the Provincial Government directly to the District Court. It must be remembered that while entertaining a reference under section 18, District Court would be a Court of limited jurisdiction and is bound to determine whether the matter in which it is asked to exercise its jurisdiction comes within the limits of its jurisdiction. Where the jurisdiction is dependent upon the existence of certain facts or circumstances, it is its obvious duty to see that those facts and circumstances exist to invest it with jurisdiction. Where a Court derives its jurisdiction from the Statute that creates it and that Statute also defines the conditions under which that Court can function, it goes without saying before that Court assumed jurisdiction, it must be satisfied that the conditions requisite for its acquiring seizing of that matter had in fact arisen. The Court functioning under Land Acquisition Act being a Court of Special jurisdiction it is its duty to see that the reference under that Act is made to it by an authority competent to make a reference and that the reference relates to a matter which may be referred to it under that Act.  Reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Sattar v. Hameed Bibi (P L D 1950. Lah. 370). This court in case of The Additional Chief Secretary, Local Government, Public Health Engineering & Rural Development Deportment, Government of Sindh, Karachi through Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Badin v. Assistant Commissioner, Badin & Land Acquisition Officer, Badin and 5 others (1993 MLD 635), has also held that no reference under S.18(3) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be made by Provincial Government through Land Acquisition Officer, but reference could be made by Provincial Government directly.

 9.               It is well settled principle of law that where a law requires doing of something in a particular manner it has to be done in the same manner and not otherwise. Reliance in this respect is place upon the cases of Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 189), Shahida Bibi v. Habib Bank Limited (PLD 2016 SC 995), Human Rights Cases Nos.4668 of 2006 and others (PLD 2010 SC 759) and Ajmir Shah, Ex-Sepoy v. The Inspector-General, Frontier Corps Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another (2021 P L C (C.S.) 420).

 

10.              We have gone through the impugned order carefully and found no illegality or irregularity committed by the District Judge while passing the impugned order. Resultantly instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

 

JUDGE

 

JUDGE