2025 PLP 1367 (YLR)
National Highway Authority through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Jaffar Ali Shah and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 PLP 1367 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Asim Hafeez, J |
| Parties | National Highway Authority through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Jaffar Ali Shah and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 1367 (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 2025 PLP 1367 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Asim Hafeez, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 1367 (YLR) (National Highway Authority through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus Jaffar Ali Shah and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhamamd Tariq Rajwana for Appellants.
- Ch. Muhammad Arshad Javed, Malik Javed Akhtar Wains, Mian Adil Mushtaq, Sahibzada Mehboob Ali Khan and Ch. Imran Khalid Amratsari for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 4 & 18
Fair compensation, determination of
Scope
Compensation declared through award was Rs.450,000/- per marla against which determination, landowners approached Referee /Trial Court, however, upon conclusion of trial, potential value of land was determined as Rs 5,000/- per Marla only
Relevant paragraph of the judgment passed by the Referee /Trial Court revealed that it (Court) determined impugned compensation (of Rs.5,000/- per Marla) while relying on a Notification having been placed/exhibited before it
High Court examined said Notification / Document but found it difficult to connect determined potential value of land of Rs.5,000/- per marla to the entry in Notification/document
Strangely , the compensation declared through award was Rs.450,000/- per marla and Referee Court determined potential value at Rs.5,000/- per Marla, which presented a ludicrous situation
It was nobody's case that any typographical or arithmetical mistake or inadvertent omission occurred while passing the impugned judgment impugned as none of the parties had filed any application with the Referee Court in said behalf
Thus, remanding the matter for determination of quantum of compensation was only option to resolve the conundrum
High Court set-aside impugned judgment passed by the Referee / Trial Court and remanded the matter to Referee Court for determination of the amount of compensation of the land-in-question in the light of the evidence recorded and available
Appeals were allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Asim Hafeez, J.
The judgment impugned through this Regular First Appeal is also under challenge through RFAs. Nos.25/2019, 241/2018 and 242/2018 - last of the two appeals are cross-appeals by the landowners / interested persons seeking compensation against acquisition of their land / properties. Dispute is regarding determination of fair compensation. Project is relating to the widening/improvement of old Shujabad road from Double Phattak to Nag Shah, Multan. In terms of award dated 16.05.2012, the compensation for land in question was declared at Rs.450,000/- per Marla. Aggrieved, the landowners / persons interested adopted remedy provided under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Court, upon conclusion of trial, determined potential value of land at Rs.5,000/- per Marla paragraph 29 of consolidated judgment dated 17.09.2018. Reliance was placed on Ex.A.1, which is Notification dated 28.06.2011. I have examined the document but find it difficult to connect determined potential value of land of Rs.5,000/- per Marla to the entry in Notification. It is strange that compensation declared through award was Rs.450,000/- per Marla and Referee Court determined potential value at Rs.5,000/- per Marla, which present ludicrous situation. It is nobody's case that any typographical or arithmetical mistake or inadvertent omission occurred while passing the judgment impugned none of the parties have had filed any application with the referee court in this behalf. Learned counsel when asked mutedly responded that matter has to be remanded for determination of quantum of compensation, only option to resolve the conundrum. No further discussion is required to avoid any prejudice to the claims of the parties - in all four appeals.
2. In view of the aforesaid, appeals are allowed and judgment of 17.09.2018 is set aside and matter is remanded to referee court for determination of the amount of compensation of the land in question in light of the evidence recorded and available. It is expected that matter would be decided within three months from the date of this judgment. No order as to the costs. MQ/N-26/L Case remanded.