1987 PLP 816 (SCMR)
Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 816 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act (VIII of 1973), S. 11‑‑Acquiescence‑‑Acquisition of land for housing scheme‑ Petitioner accepted exempted plot and paid development charges for same‑‑Subsequently challenged unsuccessfully legality of acquisition proceedings and adequacy of compensation awarded for land and structure thereon‑‑Petitioner having accepted exempted plot and failing to show that amount awarded did not represent proper value of structure, leave to appeal refused.‑‑ Acquiescence . |
| Bench Members | Adam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 816 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 816 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act (VIII of 1973), S. 11‑‑Acquiescence‑‑Acquisition of land for housing scheme‑ Petitioner accepted exempted plot and paid development charges for same‑‑Subsequently challenged unsuccessfully legality of acquisition proceedings and adequacy of compensation awarded for land and structure thereon‑‑Petitioner having accepted exempted plot and failing to show that amount awarded did not represent proper value of structure, leave to appeal refused.‑‑ Acquiescence . bench comprising: Adam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 816 (SCMR) (Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmed Hassan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Khaqan Babar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 9th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 20‑4‑1981 in Writ Petition No. 2260 of 1980. ) ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act (VIII of 1973), S. 11‑‑Acquiescence‑‑Acquisition of land for housing scheme‑ Petitioner accepted exempted plot and paid development charges for same‑‑Subsequently challenged unsuccessfully legality of acquisition proceedings and adequacy of compensation awarded for land and structure thereon‑‑Petitioner having accepted exempted plot and failing to show that amount awarded did not represent proper value of structure, leave to appeal refused.‑‑[ Acquiescence] .
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act (VIII of 1973), S. 11‑‑Acquiescence‑‑Acquisition of land for housing scheme‑ Petitioner accepted exempted plot and paid development charges for same‑‑Subsequently challenged unsuccessfully legality of acquisition proceedings and adequacy of compensation awarded for land and structure thereon‑‑Petitioner having accepted exempted plot and failing to show that amount awarded did not represent proper value of structure, leave to appeal refused.‑‑[ Acquiescence] . Ahmed Hassan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Khaqan Babar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Date of hearing: 9th March, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner in this petition for special leave to appeal was the owner of a piece of land which was acquired by the respondent‑Authority for the purpose of a development scheme known as Gulshan‑e‑Ravi Scheme. She had raised a structure on the land. The compensations for the land and the structure were assessed at Rs.2,066 and Rs.24,000 respectively. Later, she was offered an exemption plot. She accepted this plot and paid development charges for the same. Subsequently, she invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings as well as the adequacy of the compensations determined for the land and the structure. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. So far as the legality of the acquisition proceedings are concerned it is no longer open to the petitioner to challenge then as she has already accepted an exemption plot and paid development charges for the same. As regards the adequacy of the compensations for the structure learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the amount awarded to her did not represent the proper value of hex structure The petition is, therefore, without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.I./I‑5/S Petition dismissed.