1982 PLP 1019 (SCMR)
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus HIKMAT KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1019 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -----S. 48-Acquisition of land-Compensation-Determination-No sale taking place in village in question prior to publication of notice of acquisition-Difficult in circumstances to find out market value of different types of land in such village-Prices accordingly fixed by Court by taking into consideration prices fixed in different cases in adjacent village decisions in whose respect finalised--Contention that Court below failed to appreciate that market value of lands taken into consideration relates to period after issue of notification and their value could not be made basis of compensation-Such point having not been raised before High Court and petitioner's counsel being unable to show evidence having been brought on record with regard to market value of lands before issuance of notification, plea advanced, held, without merit.-Compensation. |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M. Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus HIKMAT KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1019 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1019 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -----S. 48-Acquisition of land-Compensation-Determination-No sale taking place in village in question prior to publication of notice of acquisition-Difficult in circumstances to find out market value of different types of land in such village-Prices accordingly fixed by Court by taking into consideration prices fixed in different cases in adjacent village decisions in whose respect finalised--Contention that Court below failed to appreciate that market value of lands taken into consideration relates to period after issue of notification and their value could not be made basis of compensation-Such point having not been raised before High Court and petitioner's counsel being unable to show evidence having been brought on record with regard to market value of lands before issuance of notification, plea advanced, held, without merit.-Compensation. bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M. Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1019 (SCMR) (LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus HIKMAT KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record with Muhammad Arif Siddiqi, Advocate for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th April, 1982.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record with Muhammad Arif Siddiqi, Advocate for Petitioners.
- "We are now left with the market value of the property. The learned Judge has observed and this has not been controverted that is the village in which the property is situate no sale had taken place prior to the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was, therefore, difficult for the learned Judge to find out as to what was the market value of different types of land in this village. However, the learned Judge took into consideration the prices fixed by him in the adjacent village Topi in different cases, the decisions of which have become final. It was on the basis of the market value of the village Topi that the learned Judge passed the decree. The learned Advocate‑General has not been able to point out as to what other method could, in the circumstances of the case; be adopted for assessing the market value of different types of land. He has not brought to our notice any judgment of the High Court in which the prices in village Topi as fixed by the Judge had ever been challenged."
- Chaudhry Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the learned Judges have failed to appreciate that the market value of the lands taken into consideration relates to the period after‑the issue of the notification under section 4 of the Act and that value could not be made the basis of the compensation.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court, dated 14-4-1981 in R. F. A. No. 722 of 1980).
S. 48-Acquisition of land-Compensation-Determination-No sale taking place in village in question prior to publication of notice of acquisition-Difficult in circumstances to find out market value of different types of land in such village-Prices accordingly fixed by Court by taking into consideration prices fixed in different cases in adjacent village decisions in whose respect finalised--Contention that Court below failed to appreciate that market value of lands taken into consideration relates to period after issue of notification and their value could not be made basis of compensation-Such point having not been raised before High Court and petitioner's counsel being unable to show evidence having been brought on record with regard to market value of lands before issuance of notification, plea advanced, held, without merit.-[Compensation].
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J ‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court, dated 14th April, 1981 dismissing petitioner's appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge whereby in proceedings under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the amount of compensation to be awarded to the respondents for the acquisition of their lands was enhanced. The main reason, which prevailed with the learned Judges in the High Court for refusing to interfere in the assessment of the amount of compensation made by the learned Additional District Judge may be stated in the words of their Lordships as follows "We are now left with the market value of the property. The learned Judge has observed and this has not been controverted that is the village in which the property is situate no sale had taken place prior to the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was, therefore, difficult for the learned Judge to find out as to what was the market value of different types of land in this village. However, the learned Judge took into consideration the prices fixed by him in the adjacent village Topi in different cases, the decisions of which have become final. It was on the basis of the market value of the village Topi that the learned Judge passed the decree. The learned Advocate‑General has not been able to point out as to what other method could, in the circumstances of the case; be adopted for assessing the market value of different types of land. He has not brought to our notice any judgment of the High Court in which the prices in village Topi as fixed by the Judge had ever been challenged." Chaudhry Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the learned Judges have failed to appreciate that the market value of the lands taken into consideration relates to the period after‑the issue of the notification under section 4 of the Act and that value could not be made the basis of the compensation. This point was not even raised before the High Court, and the learned counsel was not even able to show that evidence with regard to market value of the lands before the notification was issued was brought on record. There is, therefore, no merit in the plea advanced by the learned counsel in support of the petition, and it is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.