Duty of Courts to apply correct law

Duty of Courts to apply correct law---Failure of counsel to properly advise would not be a complete excuse---Judge must wear all laws of country on sleeve of his rob.  

2010 S C M R 1408

 

Present: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ

GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. and others---Appellants

Versus

AKBAR SHAH and others---Respondents

Civil Appeal No.1383 of 2009, decided on 1st February, 2010.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 3-8-2006 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in C.R. No. 406 of 1999).

(a) Administration of justice---

----Duty of Courts to apply correct law---Failure of counsel to properly advise would not be a complete excuse---Judge must wear all laws of country on sleeve of his rob. 

Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278 rel.

(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---

----S. 3---Duty of Court to look into point of limitation without there being objection of any party in terms of S. 3 of Limitation Act, 1908. 

(c) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

---Ss. 11, 12-A, 18, 31 & 31(2)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3---Land acquisition---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession---Plaintiff's plea was that Government had encroached upon suit land being in excess of acquired share of land---Defendant's plea that plaintiff's entire land including suit land was acquired in year 1951 and compensation thereof, announced vide Award dated 11-6-1966 had been received without protest, thus, suit filed by him in year 1993 i.e. after 42 years was time barred---Suit decreed by Trial Court upheld by Appellate Court and in revision by High Court---Validity---Trial Court had framed issue regarding limitation on basis of specific objection raised by defendant in written statement---Defendant has raised such objection in appeal and then in revision, but Courts below had not rendered any finding thereon---Defendant had taken possession of suit land in year 1951---Award showed that defendant had acquired entire plaintiff's land including suit land---Documents exhibited by Trial Court showed that amount of compensation received by plaintiff was exactly same, which Land Acquisition Collector had determined for entire land including suit land---Award had become final in terms of Ss. 11 and 12-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Plaintiff, after having received awarded compensation without protest had no lawful right even to file reference under S. 18 read with Ss. 30 and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Courts below had decided suit without applying mind to such documentary evidence and provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Findings of Courts below suffered from serious errors of law and fact, which unless set aside would result in miscarriage of justice---Supreme Court dismissed suit in circumstances.  

G.M. Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158; Mollah Ejahar Ali's case PLD 1970 SC 173; Ghulam Muhammad's case PLD 1967 SC 191 and Malik Muhammad Ishaque's case PLD 1997 SC 109 rel.

(d) Act of Court---

----Any act of Court shall prejudice no man.

Kedar Nath's case AIR 1922 PC 269 fol.

(e) Administration of justice---

----Primary duty of Courts and other adjudicating forums would be to decide lis before them in accordance with law---Courts/forums would not be relieved of such duty on account of fact or mean of litigation or of a lawyer. 

(f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Art. 185(3)---Concurrent findings of Courts below---Interference in such findings by Supreme Court---Scope---Supreme Court generally would not interfere in such findings, if same being reasonable and not arrived at by disregarding any provision of law or accepted principle concerning appreciation of evidence. 

Qaiser Rasheed, Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Zahoor Ahmed Khalil, Secretary Forest, N.-W.F.P. Najibullah, Deputy Collector, Mardan, and Aqil Khan, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer for Appellants.

Abdul Kabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 1st February, 2010.