2015 PLP 823 (SCMR)
Ch. AHMED NAWAZ — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Land Acquisition Collector, Jhelum and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 823 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, Ejaz Afzal Khan and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. AHMED NAWAZ — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Land Acquisition Collector, Jhelum and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 823 (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 2015 PLP 823 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, Ejaz Afzal Khan and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 823 (SCMR) (Ch. AHMED NAWAZ — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Land Acquisition Collector, Jhelum and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, Assistant A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 2015.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 6-5-2013 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in E.F.A. No.7 of 2012)
S. 34
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 51 & O. XXI, R. 10
Decision of Referee Judge not challenged either in review or appeal by land owner
Effect
Executing court, powers of
Scope
Appellant's land had been acquired, and being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, he filed a reference before the Referee Judge, who enhanced the compensation by determining the market value
Referee Judge in his decision did not allow compound interest in terms of S. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Subsequently during execution proceedings the appellant sought the compound interest in the garb of recalculation of the amount due to him, which request was allowed by the Executing Court
High Court, on appeal, set aside the order of the Executing Court
No decree ever was passed in favour of appellant by the Referee Judge in terms of S. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, granting him compound interest and such decision was not challenged by the appellant either in review or appeal, therefore such decree attained finality
While executing the decree and ascertaining the exact amount payable thereunder in the process of calculation, the Executing Court could not grant a relief to the decree-holder which was never awarded to him under the decree
Executing Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case could not modify the decree and go beyond it
Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Government of Sindh and 2 others v. Syed Shakir Ali Jafri and 6 others 1996 SCMR 1361 distinguished. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellant's land had been acquired, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAC, he filed reference and the Referee Judge enhanced the compensation by determining the market value, but in such decision, the compound interest in terms of section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not allowed. Subsequently the appellant sought the compound interest in the garb of recalculation of the amount due to him which request was so allowed by the Executing Court. However on appeal, the learned High Court set aside the order of the Executing Court and dismissed the application of the appellant.
2. We have heard the appellant in person and find that no decree ever was passed in his favour by the Referee Judge in terms of section 34 granting him compound interest and this decision was not challenged by the appellant either in review or appeal, therefore such decree attained finality. Obviously the Executing Court in the facts and circumstances could not modify the decree and go beyond it. The judgment reported as Government of Sindh and 2 others v. Syed Shakir Ali Jafri and 6 others (1996 SCMR 1361) wherein it was held that "Accordingly the executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution application and to recalculate the decretal amount "in terms of the above modification". In this Court's judgment dated 3-11-1992, it was held that "there is a marked distinction between drawing of a decree and calculation of the amount in terms of the decree. The Court's duty is to draw a decree in terms of the judgment, whereas it is for the decree-holder to calculate the amount in terms of such a decree and it is for the judgment-debtor to point out calculation mistake, if any, but the judgment-debtor cannot challenge the merits of the decretal items while challenging the calculation of the decretal amount," is distinguishable on its own facts. It was never held in the judgment (supra) that while executing the decree and ascertaining the exact amount payable thereunder in the process of calculation, the Executing Court could grant a relief to the decree-holder which was never awarded to him under the decree. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. MWA/A-7/SC Appeal dismissed.