1999 PLP 2064 (CLC)
through Collector, District D.I. Khan and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2064 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | through Collector, District D.I. Khan and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2064 (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 1999 PLP 2064 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2064 (CLC) (through Collector, District D.I. Khan and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Saeed Hassan Sherazi, A.A.‑G. for Appellants.
- S. Aabid Hussain Shah for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th February, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 18‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Owners of land being not satisfied with award of acquired land, filed objection petition‑‑‑Matter was referred to District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge‑‑‑Objection petition was accepted and compensation was enhanced which was in accordance with "Ausat Yak Sala" ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Evidence produced by parties had been discussed and valid reasons were given by District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge‑‑‑No illegality or material irregularity having been committed by Trial Court, appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S. Aabid Hussain Shah for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1998. . The land which is the subject‑matter to this appeal, was acquired for Executive Engineer (Remodelling) Project Irrigation Division, D. I. Khan by the Collector, District D.I. Khan (appellant No. l) vide: his Award, dated 23‑5‑1991 after observing all the legal formalities as required under the law. 2. The owners of the land i.e., respondents Nos. l and 2 were not satisfied with the said Award and accordingly submitted an Objection Petition before the Land Acquisition Collector, D.I. Khan, requesting therein that the matter be referred to the District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. The Land Acquisition Judge (Mr. Azar Khan Naseem), after recording the evidence which the parties wished to produce and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, accepted the Objection petition and enhanced the compensation from Rs.20,286 per Kanal to Rs.30,000 per Kanal in respect of land situated in Mouza Kotla Saidan, D.I. Khan only. 4. The appellant has challenged the legality/validity of the said judgment of the Land Acquisition Midge by filing this appeal 5. . Learned counsel for the parties present and heard. I have also gone through the record of tire case carefully. 6. It must be stated at the very outset that the learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to pin point any illegality or material irregularity which might have been committed by the Land Acquisition Judge in enhancing the price of land from Rs.20,286 per Kanal to Rs.30,000 per Kanal. Needless lo' mention that according to "Ausat Yak Sala" (Exh.P.W.1/3), the market value of the land to question curves to Rs.38,466 per Kanal. The Land Acquisition Judge has discussed the evidence produced by the parties in detail and has given valid reasons for arriving at a correct conclusion. The order of the Land Acquisition Judge is neither perverse nor arbitrary. It is neither contrary to any law nor the trial Judge has failed to determine any material issue. He lies also not committed any substantial error in arriving at the conclusion. On the other hand, his order is a speaking order. 7. This appeal, therefore, has no substance and is accordingly dismissed with cost. Q.M.H./M.A.K./67‑P Appeal dismissed.