2008 PLP 760 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others — Petitioners Versus MUNSHI KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 760 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others — Petitioners Versus MUNSHI KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 760 (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 2008 PLP 760 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 760 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others — Petitioners Versus MUNSHI KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Rao Muhammad Yousuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record and Zulqarnain, D.D.O. Roads for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd December, 2004.
- KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The only submission being made by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner-Government and others is that it had been decided by the then Chief Minister that since the landowners through whose land the road in question was to pass were to be the beneficiaries of the construction of the said road, therefore, such landowners would not be allowed any compensation for their land which was taken over for the said purpose.
- 2. This is what is called robbing Peter to pay Paul as the learned Advocate Supreme Court admits that this road had not been constructed for the benefit of the respondent alone and that it was the public-at-large who were to be benefited from the same. If this be so, then it is not understandable as to why the poor respondent be asked to take the entire burden.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 21-6-2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.1462 of 2000).
Ss. 4 & 12
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Contention of petitioner Government was that as it had been decided by Chief Minister that since landowners through whose land the road in question was to pass, were to be beneficiaries of construction of said road, they would not be allowed any compensation for their land which was taken over for said purpose
Said road had not been constructed for benefits of respondent alone, and it was the public-at-large who was to be benefited from same
Respondent could not be asked to take entire burden
Matter stood concluded by concurrent findings of three Courts including High Court
Petition for leave to appeal being a frivolous, was dismissed with costs.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The only submission being made by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner-Government and others is that it had been decided by the then Chief Minister that since the landowners through whose land the road in question was to pass were to be the beneficiaries of the construction of the said road, therefore, such landowners would not be allowed any compensation for their land which was taken over for the said purpose.
2. This is what is called robbing Peter to pay Paul as the learned Advocate Supreme Court admits that this road had not been constructed for the benefit of the respondent alone and that it was the public-at-large who were to be benefited from the same. If this be so, then it is not understandable as to why the poor respondent be asked to take the entire burden.
3. The matter stands concluded by the consistent findings of the three learned Courts including the Honourable High Court and this petition which has been filed by the petitioner-Government and its functionaries is a frivolous petition which is dismissed with costs throughout. Leave refused. H.B.T./P-28/SC Petition dismissed.