1984 PLP 1043 (SCMR)
COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION, NOWSHERA- Appellant Versus FAZAL RAHIM AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1043 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION, NOWSHERA- Appellant Versus FAZAL RAHIM AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1043 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1043 (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: 1984 PLP 1043 (SCMR) (COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION, NOWSHERA- Appellant Versus FAZAL RAHIM AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashirullah, Addl. A.-G. N.-W. F. P. for Appellant.
- Sh. Wazir Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Younus Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 2nd May, 1984.
- Sh. Wazir Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Younus Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 24th April, 1978, passed in Writ Petition No. 514 of 1975). -- Arts. 185(3) & 199-Land Acquisition (West Pakistan) Amendment Act (III of 1969) and Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 18-Award of compensation-Rate of interest-Collector while fixing compensa tion awarding simple interest at the rate of 6 % on amount of com pensation-Land-owner-respondent after receiving amount of com pensation not seeking remedy under S. 18 of Act of 1894 but challeng ing rate of interest in writ petition before High Court on plea that on award on date of announcement of compensation, he was entitled to compound interest at rate 8 % by virtue of provisions of Amendment Act of 1969-High Court allowing writ petition-Held, although, strictly speaking, writ petition did not lie, High Court did substantial justice and that impugned order only resulted in requiring appellant State to comply with law applicable on date of announcement of award.
Judgment & Decree
Bashirullah, Addl. A.‑G. N.‑W. F. P. for Appellant. Sh. Wazir Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Younus Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 2nd May, 1984. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑The facts leading to this appeal are that lands of the respondents were acquired by the Government for construction of Chillo Drain. The Collector, Nowshera delivered the award by his order dated 15‑5‑1969, fixing the amount of compensation. But he awarded only `simple interest' at the rate of 6 % per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents. It, however, transpired that when the Collector delivered the above‑mentioned award the law relating to the amount of interest admissible to the land‑owners had already been amended by the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan) Amendment Act (Act 111) of 1969. which had come into force two months earlier, w. e. f. 15‑3‑1969. It was provided thereby that henceforth interest given to the land‑owners would be `compound interest' at the rate of 8 % per annum on the compensation awarded to them for the compulsory acquisition of their lands. The respondents/land‑owners, approached the Collector through an application, who passed an order allowing them compound interest at the enhanced rate vide his order dated 10‑4‑1975. But after about a week, on 23‑4‑1975, he recalled the above‑noted order. The respondents challenged this order (dated 23‑4‑1975) through a writ petition which was allowed vide the impugned judgment. The petitioner thereupon applied for leave which was granted to them on 27‑10‑1979, to consider whether the High Court had not erred in omitting to take notice of the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. It was contended on behalf of the State that the respondents had already received the amount of compensation awarded to them and had not sought the remedy provided by section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. That is indeed so but it is not denied that on 15‑5‑1969 when the award was announced the respondents/land‑owners were already entitled to the compound interest at 8 %. Although the question of law raised in the appeal needs to be decided but the needful can be done in some other appropriate case because, we feel that in the present case substantial justice had been done and even if it could be said that strictly speaking the writ petition did not lie, the impugned order has only resulted in requiring the appellant to comply with the law as applicable on the date of announce ment of the award. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.