1999SCMR2150 (PLP)
LAHORE — Petitioner Versus Hazrat MUHAMMAD AWAIS BUKHSH SAHIB through
| Citation | 1999SCMR2150 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | LAHORE — Petitioner Versus Hazrat MUHAMMAD AWAIS BUKHSH SAHIB through |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999SCMR2150 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999SCMR2150 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999SCMR2150 (PLP) (LAHORE — Petitioner Versus Hazrat MUHAMMAD AWAIS BUKHSH SAHIB through). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Afzaal Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- N.A. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-10-1997 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, in Execution First Appeal No. l of 1993/BWP).
S. 4
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 47
Acquisition of land--E xecution of decree
Land in dispute was acquired for Seed Processing Plant established by Seed Corporation, but no amount of compensation of acquired kind was paid to owners despite decree for payment of said amount was passed against Corporation long time before
Corporation had alleged that Corporation being a Body Corporate same could sue and be sued, having not been joined as a arty to original Reference. decree could not be executed against it
High Court repelled objection raised by Corporation holding that judgment-debtors ad been mis-described in the case and it was at the most case of mis description
Case was of misdescription simpliciter
Corporation resorting to delaying tactics was not paying amount of compensation to owners of land acquired for it
Order passed by High Court was unexceptionable warranting no interference.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 23-10-1997 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Execution First Appeal No. 1 of 1993/BWP.
2. The land in dispute has been acquired for Seed Processing Plant established by the Punjab Seed Corporation, petitioner herein.
3. The dispute relates to the execution of a decree arising out of acquired land by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. l to 5 for public purposes vide notification dated 27-5-1978.
4. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the Punjab Seed corporation, being a body corporate, established under section 3 of the Punjab Seed Corporation Act, 1976, which could sue or be sued, was not joined as a party to the original reference, therefore, the decree could not be executed against them.
5. The learned Judge in Chambers repelled the objection raised by the petitioner in the following terms:- "The compensation having been enhanced by the Court, a decree has been drawn in terms of the judgment of the Court, therefore, it was not possible for the Executing Court to go behind the decree so as to look into the validity thereof and that too on the ground that the judgment- debtors have been mis-described, for at the most it was a case of mis description. Needless to add that the beneficiary is required under the law to deposit the compensation with the Land Acquisition Collector so that the same is disbursed to the person or persons whose land has been acquired. It is really astonishing that a semi-Government department is adamant to pay the compensation for the last so many years, although they have already utilised the land of the respondents. This attitude on the part of the appellant is condemnable for it is well-understood that the State is mother of the citizens but in the instant case it is pitched against its own citizens and for no just reasons. In the circumstances the order passed by the learned Executing Court does not call for interference. "
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. The learned Judge in Chambers was right in holding that it was a case of misdescription simpliciter. We regret to point out that the petitioner has been resorting to delaying tactics not paying the compensation to the respondents although the land had been acquired as back as in 1978. The impugned order is unexceptionable warranting no interference.
7. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T/M-247/S Petition dismissed.