1980 PLP 330 (SCMR)

‑‑ S. 9 (3)‑Acquisition of land‑Notice‑Injunction ad interim Personal notice served on petitioner though not placed before trial Court, yet High Court examining such Aspect of case carefully in revision‑Findings of High Court prima facie not suffering from any legal defect or principle of universal application Conditions for grant of temporary injunction being not satisfied, petition dismissed in circumstances‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185 (3) [Injunction]. Iqbal Kowkab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner. Tanveer Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General (Punjab) for Respondents.. Date of hearing : 27th October, 1979. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑A plaintiff has, through this petition for leave to appeal called in question the order passed by the Lahore High Court on 29th May, 1979 rejecting his revision, against refusal of the learned lower Courts to grant him temporary injunction. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents (Provincial Government and its functionaries) from "occupying/acquiring" his land. His main plea was that a personal notice under section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as distin guished from a public notice, was not served on him. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application for temporary injunction on a finding that section 9 of the Act had been complied with. In appeal it was held that petitioner's case was prima facie weak and that the land having been acquired for public purpose, balance of convenience was not in his favour. A learned Single Judge in the High Court held that not only a notice was given as a public notice' but also that "it was duly served upon the persons interested in the land" Sthat "Mirza Khan petitioner was duly informed of the notice but he refused to receive the same" : that according to a report "possession of the land sought to be acquired, inter alia, including the land in dispute was taken on the spot and this factum was also notified to all concerned through the beat of drum" ; and lastly that all the three necessary conditions for grant of temporary injunction are not satisfied in this case. Same arguments relating to questions of fact, which were determined by the High Court, have been raised in support of this petition. It is true 'that the copy of the personal notice served on the petitioner under sec tion 9 (3) of the Act was not placed before the learned trial Court nor was it specifically noticed by the learned appellate Court; but this aspect of the case was carefully examined by the High Court in revision. The prima facie findings of fact by the High Court in this behalf do not suffer from any defect of law or principle of universal application. We also agree with the learned lower Courts that apart from the prima facie strength of the case, the other two important conditions for grant of temporary injunction, viz irreparable loss and balance of convenience are not satisfied. This petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.