1987 PLP 1351 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1351 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1351 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1351 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1351 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Khalil Ramday, Assistant Advocate‑General for Petitioner.
- Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th November, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the orders dated 4‑7‑1982 in R.A. No. 17‑C/82 and 13‑6‑1982 in C. M 1523‑C /83 of the Lahore High Court). ‑‑‑S. 18‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Land acquisition‑‑Compensation for‑‑Reference to civil Court‑‑Appeal to High Court‑‑High Court refusing to stay execution proceedings‑‑Interim and. discretionary matter‑‑Interference with‑‑Order enhancing compensation for acquired land, challenged by Government‑‑‑ High Court refused to stay execution proceedings and allowed respondent to receive amount of compensation after furnishing security for refund‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea of non‑availability of funds for payment of compensation, held, could hardly justify stay of execution proceedings‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with interim and discretionary order and refused leave to appeal. ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Interim and discretionary matter‑‑Interference with‑‑Land acquisition‑‑Grant of compensation‑‑High Court's order declining to stay execution proceedings, challenged‑‑High Court having ordered that payment of compensation will be subject to furnishing security for refund‑‑Held, there was no proper justification for interfering with an interim and discretionary matter‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑For the lands of the respondents acquired for the Lahore Township Scheme vide notification dated 3‑5‑1960, the civil Court on a reference made to under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, allowed the respondents compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000 per Kanal. The petitioner, i.e., province of the Punjab thereon filed a Regular First Appeal in the Lahore High Court and also applied for stay of the execution proceedings. The High Court on 13‑6‑1982 declined to grant the stay but permitted the respondents to receive the money only on furnishing security for refund if the appeal ultimately succeeds. The petitioner sought review of the order and raised a number of contentions which the learned Judges felt had not been raised earlier and not finding any justifiable ground declined to review vide order dated 4‑7‑1982. This petition is directed against both the orders.
2. Learned counsel submits that there are many legal questions involved in the appeal, such as maintainability of the reference which had been filed after the award had been accepted by the respondents, limitation and computation of interest, etc. He even urges that funds are not available with the Government to pay the amount of the award. The legal points involved will, of course, be attended to by the High Court when deciding the appeal. The plea of non‑availability of funds can hardly justify stay of the execution proceeding. The High Court has already ordered that the payment will be subject to furnishing security for refund and as such we find no proper justification for interfering with an interim and discretionary matter. The petition is dismissed. M.I. /P‑15 / S Petition dismissed.