2009 PLP 1683 (YLR)
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR — Appellant Versus SAFDAR ALI SHAH — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1683 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Hamid Ali Shah and M.A. Zafar, JJ |
| Parties | LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR — Appellant Versus SAFDAR ALI SHAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1683 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1683 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Hamid Ali Shah and M.A. Zafar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1683 (YLR) (LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR — Appellant Versus SAFDAR ALI SHAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Babar Ali for Appellant.
- Tanvir Iqbal Khan for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 24, 25 and 41.
- Date of hearing: 7th October, 2008.
- ----Ss.4, 11, 18, 23 & 54---Acquisition of land---Determination of amount of compensation by the Referee Court---Referee Court to which matter was referred by invoking provisions of S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, granted enhanced compensation along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges---Said order of the Referee Court was assailed in appeal under S.54 of said Act and maintainability of appeal had been objected to by the respondents---Appellant was Land Acquisition Collector, whereas memorandum of appeal had been signed by Military Estate Officer due to inadvertence who had also affixed his official seal---No Wakalat Nama signed by the appellant had been filed---Various applications had been filed along with appeal and the affidavits in support of said applications were sworn by Military Estate Officer---Said facts had shown that appeal was filed under the instruction and on behalf of Military Estate Officer, who being beneficiary of acquired land, could not assail the judgment of the Referee Court in appeal---Request made by counsel for the appellant for substituting appellant could not he entertained at such late stage for the reasons; firstly, the request was made when the period of filing the appeal had already lapsed; secondly no formal application had been filed in that regard; thirdly the request was again made on behalf of Military Estate Officer; and lastly Standing Counsel could not represent, the Province/Land Acquisition Collector; and a valid request on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector could be made by Advocate-General---Appeals being not competent, were dismissed.
- 7. The request made by learned counsel for the appellant at this stage, for substituting the appellant cannot be entertained for various reasons. Firstly, the request is made when the period of filing the appeal has already lapsed, secondly no formal application has been filed in this regard, thirdly the request is again made on behalf of Military Estate Officer and lastly standing counsel cannot represent the Province/Land Acquisition Collector and a valid request on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector can be made by the Advocate-General, Punjab or Additional Advocate-General, Punjab.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.4, 11, 18, 23 & 54
Determination of amount of compensation by the Referee Court
Referee Court to which matter was referred by invoking provisions of S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, granted enhanced compensation along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges
Said order of the Referee Court was assailed in appeal under S.54 of said Act and maintainability of appeal had been objected to by the respondents
Appellant was Land Acquisition Collector, whereas memorandum of appeal had been signed by Military Estate Officer due to inadvertence who had also affixed his official seal
No Wakalat Nama signed by the appellant had been filed
Various applications had been filed along with appeal and the affidavits in support of said applications were sworn by Military Estate Officer
Said facts had shown that appeal was filed under the instruction and on behalf of Military Estate Officer, who being beneficiary of acquired land, could not assail the judgment of the Referee Court in appeal
Request made by counsel for the appellant for substituting appellant could not he entertained at such late stage for the reasons; firstly, the request was made when the period of filing the appeal had already lapsed; secondly no formal application had been filed in that regard; thirdly the request was again made on behalf of Military Estate Officer; and lastly Standing Counsel could not represent, the Province/Land Acquisition Collector; and a valid request on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector could be made by Advocate-General
Appeals being not competent, were dismissed. Ismail v. Razia Begum 1981 SCMR 687; Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Azam 1998 CLC 787; B.P. Pakistan Exploration and Production v. Sher Ali Khawaja PLD 2008 SC 400 and Pakistan Military Estate Officer Kharian Cantt. and another v. Hayee Khan and another PLD 1995 SC 418 ref. Syed Hasnain Kazim, A.P.G.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--This R.F.A. No.141-2004 and R.F.A. No.33-2008 having common question of law and facts are being disposed of together.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector, Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi, acquired land of the respondents. The question of compensation was referred to the Referee Court by invoking provision of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Referee Court vide judgment and order dated 19-4-2004 (impugned herein) accepted the petition and granted compensation at a rate of Rs.80,000 per Kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The order of Referee Court is assailed in this appeal.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Standing Counsel for the Federal Government on behalf of Military Estate Officer, a beneficiary of the acquired land.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant while meeting the objection of other side as to the maintaibility of this appeal has contended that in the memo. of the parties, the appellant is Land Acquisition Collector, Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi. He has further submitted that memorandum of appeal has been signed by Military Estate Officer, Rawalpindi Circle due to inadvertence. While referring to the case of Ismail v. Razia Begum (1981 SCMR 687) and Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Azam (1998 CLC 787) it is contended that appellant be permitted to amend this petition and correct the memorandum of appeal signed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that a beneficiary of the acquired 'land cannot file appeal against the decision of the Referee Court. He has supported his contentions by referring to the cases of B.P. Pakistan Exploration & Production v. Sher Ali Khawaja (PLD 2008 SC 400) and Pakistan Military Estate Officer Kharian Cantt. and another v. Hayee Khan and another (PLD 1995 SC 418).
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused. Military Estate Officer has signed this appeal as appellant and has also affixed his official seal. The Federal Counsel has been engaged by him to file this appeal and argue the same. We have perused the record and found that no Wakalat Nama signed by the appellant, has been filed. Various applications have been filed, along with this appeal and the affidavits in support of these applications were sworn by Military Estate Officer, so much so an application for early hearing filed in September, 2007 was signed by Military Estate Officer, Rawalpindi. These facts show that appeal was filed under the instruction and on behalf of Military Estate Officer, who being beneficiary of acquired land, cannot assail the judgment of the Referee Court in appeal. While holding so we are fortified by the recent judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (PLD 2008 SC 400) where it was held that:-- "Beneficiary of the acquired land has no right and locus standi to either file reference against the award of compensation/appeal against a judgment arising out of the reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894"
7. The request made by learned counsel for the appellant at this stage, for substituting the appellant cannot be entertained for various reasons. Firstly, the request is made when the period of filing the appeal has already lapsed, secondly no formal application has been filed in this regard, thirdly the request is again made on behalf of Military Estate Officer and lastly standing counsel cannot represent the Province/Land Acquisition Collector and a valid request on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector can be made by the Advocate-General, Punjab or Additional Advocate-General, Punjab.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that appeals, which have been filed on behalf of Military Estate Officer, are not competent and are accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./L-8/L Appeals dismissed.