Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal under the Land Acquisition Act and Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983
انٹرا کورٹ اپیل کی حیثیت اور پنجاب لینڈ ایکوزیشن رولز، 1983 کے تحت قانونی دائرہ کار
تعارف
مقدمے کا پس منظر
عدالت کا موقف
عدالت کا حکم
سابقہ عدالتی فیصلے
اہم نظائر:
Must read Judgement
P L D 2024 Supreme Court 499
Present: Yahya Afridi, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
REHM DAD---Petitioner
Versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others-- Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1857 of 2022, C.M.A. No. 3899 of 2022 and C.M.A. No. 1032 of 2023 in C.P. No. 1857 of 2022, decided on 15th February, 2024.
(Against judgment dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in I.C.A. No. 13 of 2021).
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
----Ss. 18 & 54---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3(2), proviso---Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, Rr. 14 & 15---Intra Court Appeal ('ICA')---Maintainability---Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the ICA on the ground that the same is not maintainable in light of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 ('LRO') as Sections 18 and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA') provides the right of reference and appeal respectively to the petitioner against the order of the Member, Board Of Revenue ('BOR')---Division Bench further found that the petitioner even had the right to file a review under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 ('BOR Act')---Validity---Essential requirement to invoke the proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO is to see whether the right of at least one appeal, revision or review is available to the original order in a proceeding where the relevant law is applicable---In relation to the applicability of the law, the determining factor is the order with which the proceedings under the relevant statute commenced---Hence, in terms of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO, the settled principle is that the law applicable shall be the law by which the proceeding started or commenced, which forms the basis of the original order---In the instant case, the petitioner moved an application under Rules 14 and 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 ('1983 Rules') before the BOR, which, was dismissed---It may be noted that the 1983 Rules were made under Section 55 of the LAA---It is established law that the rules framed under the relevant statute are an integral part of the parent Act---If the very existence of rules is based on legislation, then it shall be the said statute, including its rules, which will be the law applicable to proceedings within the meaning of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO---Hence, in the existing matter, both the LAA and 1983 Rules are laws applicable to proceedings before the BOR---Scope of Section 18 of the LAA is very limited and restricted towards the subject-matter of measurement and compensation of land---Petitioner has not raised any objections as stated in Section 18 of the LAA---Instead, the contention of the petitioner has remained that the subject land has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, hence, the same may be returned to him---That is why, he filed the application under Rules 14 and 15 of the 1983 Rules---Hence, the petitioner cannot invoke reference provisions under the LAA----Moreover, the appeal under Section 54 of the LAA lies before the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award---Meaning thereby the appeal can only be filed before the High Court after the decision of the Referee Court---As the petitioner has not raised objections before the Referee Court under Section 18 of the LAA so he cannot seek the remedy of appeal under Section 54 of the LAA---Therefore, no right of appeal was available to the petitioner in terms of Section 54 of the LAA---Consequently, the proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO is not attracted to the existing case as no right of appeal, revision or review is available to the application under Rules 14 and 15 of the 1983 Rules filed by the petitioner---Lastly, BOR Act is not the law applicable to the order passed by the Member, BOR under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO---Law applicable to the instant proceeding is the LAA and 1983 Rules; so the BOR Act is inapplicable within the meaning of proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO---Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has incorrectly concluded that the ICA is not maintainable--- Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable as no right of appeal, revision or review is available on the order passed by the Member, BOR on the application under Rules 14 and 15 of the 1983 Rules---Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed and present matter was remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the ICA afresh within a period of thirty (30) days.
International Islamic University v. Syed Naveed Altaf 2024 SCMR 472; Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre-I PLD 1985 SC 107; Muhammad Aslam Sukhera v. Collector Land Acquisition PLD 2005 SC 45; Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bakhsh PLD 1984 SC 344; Wazir Begum v. Member, Board of Revenue 2000 SCMR 989; Secretary to the Government of Punjab v. Sajjad Ahmad 2012 SCMR 114; Mirza Muhammad Nazakat Baig v. Federation of Pakistan 2020 SCMR 631; JS Bank Limited v. Province of Punjab 2021 SCMR 1617 and Land Acquisition Collector v. Mian Khan PLD 2007 SC 620 ref.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Sanaullah Zahid, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the Government of Punjab.
Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record /Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 5.
Malik Ghulam Mustafa Kandwal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 6.