PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ COLLECTOR, QUETTA SUB-DIVISION, QUETTA

ORDER

1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑ This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Acting Chief Justice of Baluchistan High Court dated 25‑11‑1987 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Judge, Quetta dated 24‑2‑1987 by which an application filed by the petitioner for restoration of Land Acquisition Case No.5 of 1980 was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that on 25‑4‑1979 Assistant Commissioner, Quetta, first respondent herein, gave an Award under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against which petitioner Government filed a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.5 of 1980 in the District Court, Quetta. On 17‑10‑1979 Haji Sarfraz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner applied for his withdrawal from the case as a counsel for the reason that he was unable to deal with it on account of his poor health. Learned District Judge permitted the learned counsel to withdraw from the case and adjourned the hearing at the request of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, U.D.C. who was present in Court on behalf of the petitioner‑Government to enable the petitioner to engage a counsel. .

3. On 19‑10‑1986 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner but on the statement of Muhammad Ashraf U.D.C. the case was again adjourned to 19‑11‑1986. On that day since no one cared to appear in Court on behalf of the petitioner, learned District Judge, Quetta dismissed the case for non‑prosecution.

4. On 22‑11‑1986, Mr. Muhammad ftiaz Ahmed, Advocate filed an application for restoration of the case but since it was not accompanied by any Wakalatname or memo of appearance it was dismissed by the learned District Judge by the order dated 24‑11‑1986. On 18‑12‑1986, Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate again, filed another application for restoration of the case which was dismissed by the learned District Judge by the order dated 24‑2‑1987 for the following reasons.

5. "Alongwith the application for restoration, Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate has filed the memo of appearance and Wakalatnama signed by Military Estate Officer Quetta. He has also filed a photostat copy of the letter of Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (Justice Division) dated 29‑10‑1986 regarding his appointment. The memo of appearance as well as the letter of appointment show that Mr. Muhammad. Riaz, Advocate has been appointed by the Government of Pakistan to defend/pursue the matter. Under the circumstances, the application for restoration of the reference filed by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate would be deemed to have been filed on behalf of the Government of Pakistan. The appointment of Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of the Government of Pakistan is not in dispute. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petition for restoration of the reference moved by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate has been filed by the competent authority. Under section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Province of Baluchistan was the only competent authority to make the reference. The reference was properly made by the Province of Baluchistan through Secretary Revenue Department Government of Baluchistan. The Federal Government or its any Agency was not the party in the proceedings. Since the reference which was dismissed for default was filed by the Province of Baluchistan, the only authority which could have moved the application for restoration of the reference was the Province of Baluchistan through Secretary Revenue Department. The application for restoration was filed on 18‑12‑1986. The matter was adjourned for hearing on several occasions. It been shown that the application for Baluchistan. The petition for restoration, under the circumstances, has not been filed by the competent authority and as such stands dismissed."

6. It was in these circumstances that petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court against the order of the learned District Judge dated 24‑2‑1987 which was dismissed by the judgment dated 25‑11‑1987 as stated earlier.

7. The reasons that prevailed with the learned Acting Chief Justice for dismissing the appeal may be usefully reproduced hereunder:‑

8. "

9. It is an admitted position that during the course of proceedings before the learned District Judge no authority had been filed on behalf of the Province of Baluchistan to conduct the proceedings. Additionally the application for restoration was moved by the learned counsel on behalf of the Federal Government, who was not a party to the proceedings. The Provincial Government had not submitted any application for the restoration of proceedings which were dismissed in default. A counsel could not appear on behalf of a party without proper authorisation. In the present case neither the Provincial Government has submitted any authority for restoration of the proceedings nor engaged any counsel to make such application."

10. After having heard the learned counsel and perused the record before us we find that no exception can be taken in law or on merits of the case with the view that prevailed with the learned Acting Chief Justice of the High Court.

11. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

12. M.Y.H./P‑56/S Petition dismissed.