2024 S C M R 481
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Munib Akhtar, Shahid Waheed and Musarrat Hilali, JJ
GUL ZAMAN---Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR GWADAR and others---Respondents
Civil Appeal No.13-Q of 2020, decided on 8th November, 2023.
(Against the judgment dated 24.11.2020 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Circuit Bench at Turbat in R.F.A. No. (T)01 of 2017)
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
----Ss. 18, 19, 20 & 21---Land acquisition---Reference to Court---Pre-requisites---Conditions mentioned under sections 18 to 21 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') have to be fulfilled before the Collector is empowered to make the reference, and then alone the Court has any jurisdiction to entertain the reference---Matter (of landowner seeking enhancement for compensation of his land) goes to Court only upon a reference made by the Collector---It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award---In fact, it is the order of reference which provides the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the objections referred to it---Section 18(1) of the Act does not authorise or permit or provide for a person aggrieved, to make an application directly to the Court.
The appellant (land owner), after having received partial compensation directly filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') in the Court of District Judge, praying therein to enhance the compensation of land, by setting aside the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. The District Judge entertained this application, registered it as a suit, and proceeded with its trial. Question was whether it was open to the land owner-appellant to have directly made an application under section 18 of the Act before the District Judge.
There are certain conditions which have to be fulfilled before the Collector is empowered to make the reference, and then alone the Court has any jurisdiction to entertain the reference. These conditions are:
(a) A written application should be made before the Collector;
(b) The person applying should be one interested in the subject matter of the reference, but who does not accept the award;
(c) The grounds of objection as to the measurement, or the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested should be stated in the application; and
(d) The application should be within the period prescribed under the provisos (a) and (b) to section 18 of the Act.
Above are all matters of substance, which may be conveniently called jurisdictional facts, and their compliance is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of reference under section 18 of the Act. The matter goes to Court only upon a reference made by the Collector. It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award. In fact, it is the order of reference which provides the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the objections referred to it. The Court is bound by the reference and cannot widen the scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are not referred to it. It is thus, not within the domain of the Court to entertain any application under the Act pro interesse suo (that is, according to his interest) or in the nature thereof.
Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahavi Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran and others AIR 2003 SC 2302; Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry and others AIR 2007 SC 215 and The Land Acquisition Collector, Pak-Arab Refinery Limited and others v. Khan (deceased) and others 2019 MLD 968 ref.
Remedy by filing an application under the Act directly to the Court of District Judge was clearly misconceived, inasmuch as section 18(1) of the Act does not authorise or permit or provide for a person aggrieved, to make an application directly to the Court, and the Trial Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to decide the points arising in the application; therefore, the proceedings of the District Judge were void ab-initio. Appeal was dismissed.
(b) Jurisdiction---
----Principle---Whenever jurisdiction is given by a statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained therein, it is a universal principle that those terms should be complied with in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, and if they are not complied with, the jurisdiction does not arise.
Nusserwanjee Pestonjee and others v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan Wullud (1885) 6 MIA 134 and Mansab Ali v. Amir and others PLD 1971 SC 124 ref.
(c) Administration of justice---
----Purpose of law is to settle down and not to devise means to multiply contest between the parties.
Kamran Murtaza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
Muhammad Ayyaz Swati, Additional A.G. with Qamar Abbas, Focal Person for Respondents.
Comments
Post a Comment