1990 PLP 980 (SCMR)
Malik Haji NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus WAPDA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 980 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Malik Haji NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus WAPDA and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Electricity Act (IX of 1910)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 980 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Electricity Act (IX of 1910)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 980 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 980 (SCMR) (Malik Haji NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus WAPDA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 18‑1‑1986, passed in Civil Revision No. 28/86). ‑‑‑‑S.51‑‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), Preamble‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑=Case involved question of interpretation of provisions of West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 and those of Electricity Act, 1910 which was of substantial legal importance‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 20th September, 1989. S.USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed on 18‑1‑1986. The respondents had installed a 500 K.V. transmission line over the land of the petitioners due to which, according to them, their buildings and fruit trees worth Rs.48,75,000.00 were damaged. The petitioners filed a suit for compensation before the District Judge, Multan which was contested by the respondents. On the pleadings of the parties the District Judge framed 7 issues out of which issue No. 6 was regarding the jurisdiction the learned District judge decided this issue in favour of the respondents and dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide order dated 6‑11‑1985. The petitioners went in revision before the High Court, wherein it was contended that WAPDA being a licensee under the Electricity Act, 1910 and under section 51 of the said Act powers have beer. conferred on the licensee which can be exercised by the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885. It was also added that under section 16 para. 3 of the Telegraph Act a District Judge is competent to determine the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid to the aggrieved party. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that provisions of tae Telegraph Act, 1885 regarding the sufficiency of compensation be determined by the District Judge cannot be extended to the instant case when a specific Statute like WAPDA Act is there. The petitioners‑ were advised to approach the Deputy Commissioner for this purpose and the, revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed in limine vide order dated 18‑‑1986. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we have come to the conclusion that the case involves the question of interpretation of the provisions of WAPDA Act, 1958 and that of the Electricity Act, 1910 which is of substantial legal importance. Leave to appeal is therefore, granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,
000. Appeal is to be made ready on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary. Interim stay order already granted by this Court shall continue. H.B.T./N‑226/S Leave granted..