1969 PLP 206 (SCMR)
Syed MOHIB JAHANYA SHAH GARDEZI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 206 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed MOHIB JAHANYA SHAH GARDEZI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 206 (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 1969 PLP 206 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 206 (SCMR) (Syed MOHIB JAHANYA SHAH GARDEZI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioners.
- S. M. Bashir, Additional Advocate‑General (Shamim Ahmad Hirza, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing : 13th December 1958.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 8th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 166 of 1968).
S. 4‑No notice of acquisi tion given to persons concerned‑Acquisition, in circumstance, whether legal‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Judgment & Decree
Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioners. S. M. Bashir, Additional Advocate‑General (Shamim Ahmad Hirza, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 1 and
2. Date of hearing : 13th December 1958. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The `Bahawalpur House" com prising of a dilapidated bungalow in an area of 3 acres, 6 kanals and 11 marlas of land situated in the Civil Lines, Multan, was sold by His Highness the Nawab of Bahawalpur to Moazarn Khan. Later on the sale was successfully pre‑empted by Syed Muhammad Nawaz Shah Gardezi, the predecessor‑in‑interest, of the respondents 7 to 15 under the decree of a civil Court passed on 30‑6‑1959. Aggrieved by the decree the original vendee filed an appeal in the High Court which was pending when the West Pakistan Government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring the intention to acquire the said property. In the notification appearing at pages 25 and 26 the property is described by field numbers situated in Taraf Ismail, Tehsil Multan. Neither the original vendee nor the pre‑emptor filed objections to the proposed acquisition under section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act within the prescribed time. The acquisition proceedings were completed and an award given on 8‑1‑1966 against which the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the notification under section 4 on the ground that insufficient and misleading description of the Bahawalpur House was given therein which did not constitute proper notice of the proposed acquisition to, the owner and thereby deprived him of the right to object to he proposed acquisition. Other pleas of mala fides, fraud on the statute, and misrepresentation were also raised. The learned Judges in the High Court have dismissed the writ petition on the finding that the original vendee as well as the pre‑emptor had the notice of the acquisition proceedings. The other pleas raised in the petition were not adverted to. It is contended that no notice of the acquisition proceedings was given to the original vendee or the pre‑emptor within the prescribed time and that miscellaneous objections filed by the later beyond the prescribed period of limitation did not cure the basic defect in the notification under section 4 of the Land' Acquisition Act. The questions raised require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Security‑Rs. 1,
000. Leave granted.