AHLIYAN-E-DODISHAL Versus The COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION
ALI BAIG, J.--- Through the instant civil revision petition filed under section 115 read with 151, C.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment/Order dated 23-05-2018 passed by the learned District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge Diamer whereby the learned Referee Judge Diamer has dismissed the application filed under Order I, rule 10(4) C.P.C. by the petitioners for filing of amended reference petition.
2. A brief history of the case is that the present petitioners had filed a reference petition in the Court of the learned District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge Diamer under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act against the Award No. LAC-(DBD)-1/ 2011 dated 27-12-2013.
3. During pendency of above mentioned reference petition the present petitioners filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for impleading of Chairman WAPDA and the Government of G.B through Chief Secretary G.B. Gilgit in the array of respondents in the learned trial Court/District Court Diamer, which was dismissed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge Diamer. Feeling aggrieved the present petitioners had filed a revision petition in this Court against the order of the learned Land Acquisition Judge Diamer and a Division Bench of this Court had allowed the aforesaid revision petition and petitioners were allowed to implead Government of Pakistan through Chief Secretary G.B and Chairman WAPDA as respondents in the reference petition. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(4), C.P.C. in the Court of District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge Diamer for filing of amended reference petition and the learned District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the above mentioned application filed by the present petitioners, hence this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned Order passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge Diamer is contrary to the law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned Order of the learned land Acquisition Judge Diamer is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel of the petitioners further argued that since this Court has allowed the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2), C.P.C. and Chairman WAPDA and Government of G.B through Chief Secretary G.B have been impleaded as respondents in the reference petition, therefore the original reference petition is required to be amended under the provisions of Order I Rule 10, (4), C.P.C. as the petitioners want to claim relief from the newly added respondents by amending in the reference petition and the learned District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge has wrongly dismissed the petition of the present petitioners filed under Order I, Rule 10(4), C.P.C.
5. On the other hand the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this revision petition and supported the impugned Judgment/Order passed by the learned District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge Diamer by contending that this Court had allowed the petitioners to add/implead Chairman WAPDA and Government of G.B through Chief Secretary G.B as respondents by allowing revision petition of the present petitioners and accordingly the Chairman WAPDA and Provincial Government of G.B have been impleaded as respondents in the Original Reference Petition as such, no further amendment in the reference petition is required. The learned Additional A.G and Counsel for the private respondents further argued that since the original reference petition was filed on 29-03-2014 and is fixed for final arguments and the petitioners have filed the application under Order I Rule 10(4), C.P.C. with mala fide intention to prolong the proceedings which has rightly been dismissed the learned land acquisition Judge Diamer.
6. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through record with their able assistance.
7. From perusal of record it transpires that this reference petition is lingering on since 29-03-2014 and is now fixed for final arguments before the learned Land Acquisition Judge Diamer. The present petitioners have filed the reference petition in the Court of Learned Land Acquisition Judge Diamer claiming that they are owners of acquired land and such they are entitled to receive amount of compensation of acquired land and the collector Land Acquisition Diamer has wrongly passed the award in the name of respondents No. 4 to 8 and they have not claimed for enhancement of compensation amount of the acquired or re-measurement of the acquired land. This Court has allowed the petitioners only to implead the Chairman WAPDA and Provincial Government of G.B. as respondents which has been done by the petitioners as such question to amend in reference petition does not arise in contemplation of Order I, Rule 10(4) C.P.C. Under the provisions of Order I Rule 10(4), C.P.C. court my allow such amendments as necessitated by the addition or striking out of parties. It cannot permit amendments which will add or alter natural of suit. Reference in this connection can be made to the reported Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 1989 SCMR 476.
8. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned Order passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge Diamer. We, therefore, fully agree with the findings of learned land acquisition Judge Diamer who has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order I, Rule 10(4), C.P.C. The Impugned Order does not call for any interference by this Court.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. File.
SA/180/GB Revision dismissed.