1988 (PLP)
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑ Appellant Versus GHULAB DIN (Represented by his Legal Heirs) and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑ Appellant Versus GHULAB DIN (Represented by his Legal Heirs) and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 (PLP) (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑ Appellant Versus GHULAB DIN (Represented by his Legal Heirs) and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Muzzamil Khan for Respondent No.l. Nemo for
- Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 7th and 8th November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
___Ss. 18 b 50 (2)‑‑Appeal‑‑Maintainability‑‑Appeal against order of Civil Court made upon a reference under S.18‑‑Order of Civil Court not an independent order but merely a substitutive order whereby the award of Land Acquisition Collector is substituted by the order of Civil Court and thus itself becomes award‑‑Such award being final cannot be challenged except by a party who had expressly been conferred the right of appeal‑‑Appellant having no such right expressly conferred upon it, appeal filed by it was not maintainable. Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer P L D 1987 SC 485rel.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant. Muzzamil Khan for Respondent No.l. Nemo for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 7th and 8th November, 1987. KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN KHAN, J.‑‑By this judgment we propose to dispose of 8 Regular First Appeals (R . F. A . 173 of 1984, R . F. A . 174 of 1984, R.F.A. 175 of 1984, R.F.A. 176 of 1984, R.F.A. 177 of 1984, R.F.A. 178 of 1984, R.F.A. 179 of 1984 and R.F.A. 180 of 1984) whereby the Water and Power Development Authority challenged the order dated 24‑7‑1984 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeals. They argued that the 'authority' or the 'company' has no right under Section 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act to prefer an appeal against the decision made by the Court upon a reference under Section 18 of the Act. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on Pir Khan. v. Military Estate Officer (P L D 1987 SC 485). The learned Judges of the Supreme Court, in this judgment, held that: "Order of the Civil Court on reference made to it by the Land Acquisition Collector is not an independent order but merely a substitutive order, whereby the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is substituted by the order of the Civil Court, which order then becomes the award. Since, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 50 of the Act, the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector is final and cannot be challenged A except by a party which has expressly been conferred the right. of appeal, hence party which did not have any such right expressly conferred on it, did not have any locus standi to file an appeal." It was further observed that:‑ "No such right is to be assumed on any a priori ground and a right of appeal can be exercised only if it has been expressly conferred on a party by statute."
3. The aforesaid judgment clinches the issue. Thus the appeals filed by WAPDA are incompetent and not maintainable. The same are, therefore, dismissed. The cross‑objections filed in R.F.A. 175 of 1984 also fail as on an objection raised by the respondents, the appeal has been held to be incompetent. Cross objections are, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. M.Y.H./W‑15/1 Appeals dismissed.