1989 PLP 1130 (SCMR)
ARSHAD MAHMOOD JADOON‑‑Petitioner Versus LAND ACOUISITION COLLECTOR, ABBOTTABAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1130 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ARSHAD MAHMOOD JADOON‑‑Petitioner Versus LAND ACOUISITION COLLECTOR, ABBOTTABAD‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1130 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1130 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1130 (SCMR) (ARSHAD MAHMOOD JADOON‑‑Petitioner Versus LAND ACOUISITION COLLECTOR, ABBOTTABAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with MA. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (absent).
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 27th October, 1987 of the Peshawar High Court in RYA. No. 97 of 1986). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Land acquisition‑‑Contention that two similar appeals regarding compensation for trees were heard by the High Court and while discussing the features of each case, some considerations of one appeared to have weighed with the High Court in the other case‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether; in the facts and circumstances of the case the two appeals should not have been dealt with separately, and that, if they had to be disposed of together, the treatment and discussion of the evidence and its effects in each case, should not have been separate. MLai v. Asniq Hussain Shah
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in a dispute regarding compensation, on acquisition of land, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondent's first appeal. It is, inter alia, contended that two similar appeals regarding compensation for trees were heard by the High Court together. While discussing the features of each case, some considerations of one appeared to have weighed with the learned Judges in the other case. After going .through the impugned judgment we consider it a fit case to examine whether; in the facts and circumstances of this case the two appeals should not have been dealt with separately; and that, if they had to be disposed of together, the treatment and discussion of the evidence and its effect in each case, should not have been separate. It is also necessary to notice that in the connected case a direct appeal in the High Court having been filed, is pending. Leave to appeal, accordingly is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of the appeal. This appeal shall be heard together with direct appeal filed by Ghulam Mustafa against the same impugned judgment. M.BA./A‑489/S Leave granted.