PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED and others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EAST), KARACHI and others

ORDER

1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This order will dispose of all the abovementioned six matters because the question of law calling for decision in all of them is the same, namely, whether a company for whose benefit some land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is competent to file an appeal against the judgment passed by the referee Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act?

2. ' The High Court in all these matters has answered this question in the negative relying on this Court's judgment in Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad (PLD 1987 SC 485), wherein it was held that an order of the Civil Court on a reference made to it by the Land Acquisition Collector is final and cannot be challenged except by a party which has expressly been conferred the right of appeal. Since no such right is conferred upon a local authority or a Company for whose benefit the land is being acquired by the statute such a party cannot prefer an appeal against the decision made by the Civil Court upon a reference made under section 18 of the Act.

3. ' We have heard Mr.Khalid M.Ishaq and Ch. Fazle Hussain, learned counsel for the various appellants. They attempted to argue that the judgment of this Court in Pir Khan's case requires reconsideration and pressed for its review. It was submitted that a right of appeal can be spelt out in favour of a Company or a Local Authority if sections 18 & 50(2) of the Act, which were considered in Pir Khan's case, are read alongwith the provisions of sections 9(5), 11, 20, 22-A & section 26 of the Act.

4. The law is that a review can be sought of a judgment, delivered after proper consideration of the questions falling for decision therein, of this Court only where the said decision was given per incuriam (i.e, through oversight, without considering for instance some statute or the like), but where the relevant statutory provisions have been considered and an interpretation given thereon a review would not be justified merely because another view of the provisions involved is possible; see Government of Punjab v. Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PLD 1988 SC 382).

5. ' In this case the provisions which, according to the learned counsel, escaped consideration while delivering the earlier judgment have, on perusal been found to have no real relevance to -the question falling for decision. In these circumstances, no good ground exists justifying a review of this Court's earlier judgment in Pir Khan's case.

6. Insofar as the impugned judgments -of the High Court in the above matters are founded on this Court's judgment in Pir Khan's case, no interference B therewith is warranted.