COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION SKARDU Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD

1. MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This civil first appeal assails judgment/ decree, dated 9-9-2005 passed by the District Judge/Referee Court, Skardu, whereby the learned Judge has accepted the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the respondents.

2. The facts caused longstanding hurdles, wastage of time and monetary losses to the parties, either because of careless attitude of the Referee Court towards the matter, or because of immature legal assistance, are as under that, during the year 1987, the lands belonging to the respondents were acquired for construction of Kharmang Road and the Collector Land Acquisition made the award bearing No.DK-1(3)/87 dated 4-10-1987, in favour of the respondents, which was assailed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Collector and the Collector referred the same to the Referee Court Skardu. The learned Referee Court granted the petition in favour of present respondents vide his judgment/decree dated 20-2-1994, the same was challenged before this Court and the matter was remanded by this Court vide order, dated 29-4-1998, allowing the present petitioners to amend the petition under section 18 of the Act and also to remove other defects caused because of ill advice.

3. The learned Referee Court, after getting back the petition from this Court, framed new issues on 16-9-1999 in the light of amended pleadings and called the parties to adduce evidence in proof and rebuttal of the new issues framed, and finally adjudicated the matter on merits and accepted the petition in favour of the present' respondents on 9-9-2005, hence this appeal before this Court.

4. We heard, the ' learned Advocate-General for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents, but we were taken aback while going through the impugned judgment, the learned Referee Judge seems to be too "careless" and painless in performing his judicial responsibilities that, he has ironically discussed and has based his findings on the previous issues framed prior to remand of the matter by this Court and has totally ignored the issues framed afresh on 16-9-1999 in the light of amendments introduced in the pleadings as per order, dated 29-4-1998 of this Court.

5. We were again shocked, when we observed the operative part of the impugned judgment, wherein, the learned Referee Judge has awarded 16% compound interest, while sections 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provided 8% of compound interest, if any case comes within the ambit of either section, one cannot imagine, if a Judicial Officer of such a senior cadre, as the learned Referee Judge enjoys, may commit such blunder of being too ignorant of relevant laws. The Judicial Officers should not forget their delicate judicial' responsibilities while they sit to determine legal rights and liabilities of litigant public. The Judges are supposed to be well versed of relevant law and facts of each case, otherwise justice cannot be dispensed with or delivered. The inevitable or uncurable technical or factual errors of lower courts may cause falling of the litigants from top to bottom for addressing the same, if the lower courts do not perform their duties with full care and prudence, as happened in the case in hand, the pasties may suffer from inordinate delay in final disposal of the disputes and it creates a sense of dissatisfaction and hopelessness over the judicial system in the country, therefore, the Judicial Officers must be conscious of this fact.

6. The conclusion of the above discussion is that, the matter is remitted again to the learned Referee Court, Skardu to decide the petition afresh, by giving its findings on issues framed on 16-9-1999.

7. S.A.K./19/Glt. Case remanded.