THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE vs Mian NOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS

1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI, J.-These connected appeals are directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, dated 15th July 1966, affirming the market price fixed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, of land situated in Lahore, acquired by the Government for construction of residential quarters for its officials in 1955.

2. ' The Collector divided the land in four blocks and fixed the price ranging between Rs, 1,000 to Rs, 2,200 per kanal. On reference, made at the instance of the owners under section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Senior Civil Judge, increased the market price against which both the Provincial Government and the owners filed cross-appeals in the High Court.

3. ' A Division. Bench of the High Court dismissed all the appeals holding that the market price fixed by the Senior Civil Judge was, in the attending circumstances, just and fair. Being dissatisfied with the rejection of the appeals, the Provincial Government on 12th October 1966 applied to the High Court for grant of a certificate of fitness under sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. ' In the meantime, some of the owners, who claimed that the market price fixed by the Senior Civil Judge, was inadequate, applied to this Court under Article 58 of the 1962 Constitution for special leave. Leave was granted on the 21st October 1966. Civil Appeals Nos. 9, 49 and 53 of 1970 have arisen out of those petitions. Certificate of fitness was granted to the Provincial Government on 31st October 1968, by the High Court merely on the ground that this Court had already given leave to appeal from the same judgment of the High Court. Thereafter 14 petitions of appeals were filed being Civil Appeals Nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77 of 1968 and 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 of 1969 by the Provincial Government.

5. ' In the concise statements filed by the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 69 of 1968 and 6 of 1969, an objection was taken that there were no proper appeals before this Court as special leave to appeal was not obtained by the Provincial Government under Article 58 of the 1962 Constitution.

6. On the enforcement of the 1962 Constitution, appeals in civil matters lay to this Court only by special leave of the Court under Article 58. No appeal lay thereafter from the judgment, decree or order passed by the High Court under sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was so held by this Court in the case of Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (1).

7. ' The concise statements were filed by the respondents on 13th May 1972, and 8th May 1972, in which the aforementioned objection was successfully taken. A copy of the statement was served on the Attorney of the Provincial Government but in spite of it, no steps were taken to remedy the error by applying for special leave to appeal.

8. ' It is contended on behalf of the respondents that there are no proper appeals before this Court and that the petitions of appeals filed by the Provincial Government are likely to be rejected on this short ground. In reply, the learned counsel for the Provincial Government, made an oral prayer that special leave to appeal may be granted at this belated stage. The respondents' counsel opposed the prayer on the ground that valuable rights have since accrued to their clients which should not be taken away merely to condone negligence on the part of the appellant.

9. There is force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. As observed by this Court in more than one judgment, Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment as compared to ordinary citizens in adjudication of civil matters. The appeals filed by the Provincial Government were dismissed on the 15th July 1966, and no explanation is given to condone the delay of more than 8 years. The oral prayer made by the learned counsel for converting the appeal to a petition for special leave to appeal is, in the circumstances, rejected.

10. ' We, accordingly, have no properly constituted appeals before us. The petitions of appeals filed in Civil Appeals Nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77 of 1968 and 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 of 1969 are, in the circumstances, rejected with costs.

11. ' Cross-appeals filed in Civil Appeals Nos. 70 of 1968 and 7 to 10 of 1969 by the respondents were not pressed. There will be no order as to costs in these matters.