WAPDA vs MUHAMMAD FARID and others
This matter concerns the maintainability of appeals filed by WAPDA against orders of the Civil Court regarding land acquisition. The preliminary objection raised was that the appellants lacked locus standi to appeal, citing previous Supreme Court precedents (Pir Khan and Behram Khan) which established that an order of a Civil Court on a reference from a Land Acquisition Collector is a substitutive order, making the Collector's award final and unchallengeable by parties lacking an express statutory right of appeal. The appellants, represented by the Attorney-General, argued that these precedents overlooked constitutional provisions, specifically Articles 149, 152, and 173 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which empower the Federal Government to acquire land and exercise executive authority, thereby granting them standing as interested parties rather than strangers to the proceedings. The Court acknowledged that this constitutional argument required further examination. However, because the conflicting precedents were established by a three-judge Bench and upheld by a five-judge Bench, the Court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to vary or overrule them, necessitating the matter be referred to a larger seven-judge Bench for final determination.
- Does the Federal Government have locus standi to file an appeal against a Civil Court order regarding a land acquisition reference?
- Can a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court overrule a previous judgment upheld by a five-judge Bench?
- Does the executive authority of the Federation under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confer a right of appeal in land acquisition proceedings despite the finality of the Collector's award?
- Section 50(2), Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Article 149, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 152, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 173, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--A preliminary objection has been raised in the above matters to the effect that the appellants have no locus standi to prefer these appeals and thus the appeals filed by them are not maintainable. In this connection, reliance is placed on two judgments of this Court namely Pir Khan through his Legal Heirs v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad and others (PLD 1987 SC 485) and Behram Khan and 54 others v. Military Estate Officer and 2 others (1988 SCMR 1160).
2. Herein it was held that the order of the Civil Court on reference made to it by the Land Acquisition Collector is not an independent order but merely a substitutive order, whereby the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is substituted by the order of the Civil Court which order then becomes the award. Since, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector is final and cannot be challenged except by a party which has expressly been conferred the right of appeal hence the Military Estate Officer and the Central Government (who were appellants in the case) who did not have any such right expressly conferred on them, did not have any locus standi to file an appeal".
3. ' Accordingly, they were found strangers to the proceedings despite the fact that the land was being acquired for their benefit.
4. ' Mr Yahya Bakhtiar, learned Attorney-General for Pakistan, in support of these appeals has contended that in these two judgments certain provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 have been overlooked namely Article 152 which, inter alia, provides that "the Federation may, if it deems necessary to acquire any land situate in a Province for any purpose connected with a matter with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws, require the Province to acquire the land on behalf and at the expense of the Federation"; Article 149 which empowers the Federal Government in exercise of its executive authority to give all necessary directions to a Province and Article 173 according to which the executive authority of the Federation and of a Province extends, subject to any Act of the appropriate Legislature to the purchase or acquisition of property on behalf of the Federal Government. It is further submitted that the land in these cases was required for the benefit of and on behalf of the Federal Government; they were, therefore, not strangers to the proceedings and had the right to file cross-objections against the award of the Collector as well as appeals against the order of the Civil Court passed on reference.
5. ' We consider that this aspect of the case does indeed require further consideration but as the judgments noted above have been passed by a Bench of three Judges and the review petition directed against them was dismissed by a Bench of 5 Judges if it is found that the rule laid down in these judgments requires to be varied, dissented from or overruled, a larger Bench of 7 Judges could alone be in a position to do so.
6. ' These cases may, therefore, be put up for appropriate orders before the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
Cited by 6 cases
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and another vs SHAH RASOOL and 3 others 1992 CLC 67
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE vs QAMARUDDIN and aNother 1992 CLC 258
- ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR through its ViceChancellor vs KHADIM 1990 MLD 2158
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, WAPDA SCARP-VI, RAHIMYAR KHAN Versus QURESH MUHAMMAD 1990 MLD 2123
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, WAPDA SCARPVI, RAHIMYAR KHAN and another vs QURESH MUHAMMAD and 17 others 1990 MLD 2133
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE vs QAMAR UD DIN And Other K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 193