1996 PLP 968 (SCMR)
COMMUNICATIONS AND PHYSICAL PLANNING‑‑‑Petitioner Versus TAUQIR AHMED KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 968 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | COMMUNICATIONS AND PHYSICAL PLANNING‑‑‑Petitioner Versus TAUQIR AHMED KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 968 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 968 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 968 (SCMR) (COMMUNICATIONS AND PHYSICAL PLANNING‑‑‑Petitioner Versus TAUQIR AHMED KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abu] Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all above Cases).
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 1 I (in C.P. No. 677‑L of 1994).
- Sher Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in C.P. No. 680‑L of 1994).
- M. Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Meta Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 (in C.P. No. 683‑L of 1994).
- Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (in C.P. No. 685‑L of 1994)
- Basher A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No. 685‑L of 1994).
- Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondents (in all Cases).
- Date of hearing: 9th January, 1995.
- Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abu] Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all above Cases).
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 1 I (in C.P. No. 677-L of 1994).
- Sher Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in C.P. No. 680-L of 1994).
- M. Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Meta Advocate-on-Record for Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 (in C.P. No. 683-L of 1994).
- Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (in C.P. No. 685-L of 1994)
- Basher A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1 (in C.P. No. 685-L of 1994).
- Bashir A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21‑2‑1994 in Writ Petitions Nos. 1209/86, 281/87, 353/87, 1415/88, 6607/88, 2237/89, 4261/91, 4389‑6948‑7735/91. 322/87, 6563/90 and 7756 of 1991 respectively). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 4, 5 & 17‑A‑‑‑Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, R. 7‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Acquisition proceedings ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Acquisition proceedings were challenged on the ground that in accordance with R..7, Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, acquisition proceedings were to be deemed to have come to an end as no notification under S. 5, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued within one year from the date of publication of notification under S 4 of the Act‑‑‑High Court on basis of such contention declared the proceedings taken after the expiry of one year to be void and without jurisdiction‑‑‑Finding of the High Court was challenged by the Government on the ground that Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, were inapplicable for having come into force subsequent to notification issued under S. 17‑A of the Act‑‑‑Even though first notification of acquisition was issued in 1979 yet proceedings for determination of compensation payable to contesting .respondents had not been finalised till they filed Constitutional petition in 1986‑‑‑During the intervening period, price of land had escalated manifold‑‑‑If acquisition proceedings were allowed to continue, compensation which contesting respondents would receive could hardly bear any proportion to market value of their land on the day they approached the High Court‑‑‑Order of High Court, however, was in accordance with the instructions of Provincial Government as embodied in its memorandum on the subject which had been quoted by the High Court in its judgment‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.
The contesting respondents owned land in village Dhana Singh Wala of Tehisl Lahore. On 15-10-1979 the Collector issued a Notification under section 4, Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of 781 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land for the construction of residential accommodation for Central Government Employees at Lahore. By three subsequent notifications dated I-6-1980, 25-7-1981 and 16-8-1981 certain areas were excluded and certain others were included in the land sought to be acquired. However, no further progress was made till 6-4-1983 when the Commissioner issued another notification under section 17(4), Land Acquisition Act, directing that the provisions of section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the acquisitions in question. Still later on 6-4-1985 another notification was issued under sections 6 and 7 of the Act whereby .the Executive Engineer was directed to take order for acquisition of the said land.
2. The contesting respondents whose land stood acquired challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that in accordance with Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, framed under the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition proceedings were to be deemed to have come to an end as no notification under section 5, ibid, was issued within one year from the date of the publication of the notification under section
4. The High Court found merit in the contention of the contesting respondents and declared the proceedings taken after the expiry of one year to be void and without jurisdiction. The Federal Government seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. .
3. The contention on behalf of the Federal Government is that the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules were inapplicable here as those came into force subsequent to the notification issued under section 17-A, Land Acquisition Act, by the Commissioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we do not think that these are fit cases for interference by this Court. Even though the first notification of acquisition was issued in 1979 yet the proceedings for determination of the compensations payable to the contesting respondents had not been finalised till they filed writ petitions in the High Court in 1986. During this period the price of the land has escalated manifolds. If the acquisition proceedings are allowed to continue the compensation which the contesting respondents will receive can hardly bear any proportion to the market value of their land on the day they approached the High Court. We cannot be a party to this manifest injustice. Apart from that the order of the High Court is in accordance with the instructions of the Provincial Government as embodied in its memorandum of 15-6-1968 which has been quoted in the impugned judgment. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused. A.A./G-509/S Leave refused.