1991 PLP 1539 (CLC)
MUKHTAR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1539 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUKHTAR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1539 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1539 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1539 (CLC) (MUKHTAR AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 4,5,6 & 17‑‑‑Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1980, R.7‑‑‑Acquisition of land‑‑‑After issuing notification under S.4 of Act, no further action pursuant thereto was taken by Authority within a period of one year and two months‑‑‑ Proceedings for acquisition of land in dispute which had lapsed in view of R.7, were declared to be illegal in circumstances. Nazarul Hussain v. The Collector, Lahore District, Lahore and 5 others P L D 1990 Lah. 472 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Nazarul Hussain v. The Collector, Lahore District, Lahore and 5 others P L D 1990 Lah. 472 ref. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioner Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th March, 1991. The validity of the proceedings undertaken by the respondents for acquisition of the land measuring 8 Kanals 5 Marlas situate at Sargodha Mianwali Road belonging to the petitioners have been challenged by them by filing this constitutional petition on various grounds mentioned therein. The petition was admitted on 23rd of February, 1991 to consider the contention that as no further action was taken by the respondents after issuing notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 within a period of one year and two months, the proceedings had elapsed in view of Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1980.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has reiterated the same arguments. The representatives of the respondent who had appeared were unable to say anything on the subject. They were specifically asked if they wanted to engage a counsel but they showed their disinclination.
3. It is established on the record that the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition 1894 was issued on 20th August, 1988. No action pursuant thereto was taken by the respondents till 19th March, 1989 when a notification under section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and a declaration under section 6 of the Act was published. According to Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules if no notification under section 5 is made within a period of one year from the issuance of notification under section 4 or if the Board of Revenue extend the period, within one year and two months from the issuance of that notification, the proceedings are deemed to have come to an end. It has been held by this Court in Nazarul Hussain v. The Collector, Lahore District. Lahore and 5 others (P, L D 1991 Lah. 472) that on the expiry of stipulated period, no jurisdiction is vested in the authorities concerned to take any further proceedings and no action under section 17 can be taken thereafter. The cited precedent is in all fours with the present case. As a result of what has been stated above this petition succeeds, the proceedings for acquisition are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑2907/L Petition accepted.