P L D 2004 Peshawar 152 (PLP)
SHER AMAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PROJECT DIRECTOR, MARDAN, and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2004 Peshawar 152 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Dost Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | SHER AMAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PROJECT DIRECTOR, MARDAN, and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2004 Peshawar 152 (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 P L D 2004 Peshawar 152 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Dost Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2004 Peshawar 152 (PLP) (SHER AMAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus PROJECT DIRECTOR, MARDAN, and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mozammil Khan for Appellants.
- Muhammad Alam Khan and Ubaid Ullah Anwar, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th April, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.4, 11, 18 & 54‑‑‑Acquisition of land‑‑‑Determination of amount of compensation‑‑‑Reference to Court‑‑‑Landowner being dissatisfied with amount of compensation of acquired land as determined by Collector, filed reference to Referee Court for enhancement of amount of compensation‑‑‑Reference was dismissed on the ground of limitation‑‑ Apart from that question as to whether appellant was fairly compensated or not, Referee Court had relied upon Revenue Record and also evidence collected at the trial‑‑‑Authority had produced on record judgments wherein a Division Bench of High, Court had upheld compensation amount already determined‑‑‑No room therefore, was available for taking another view‑‑‑No case for interference having been made out, appeal filed by landowner, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Mozammil Khan for Appellants. Muhammad Alam Khan and Ubaid Ullah Anwar, A.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th April, 2004. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 10‑12‑1996 of the learned Referee Judge/Senior Civil Judge Swabi dismissing reference petition of the appellants in respect of the land acquired by the respondents wherein enhancement of compensation sought was refused.
2. Short facts are that the land of the appellants was acquired alongwith the land of the other adjacent co‑owners for the compensation @ Rs.13,553 per Kanal through award dated 16‑3‑1991. The claim of the appellants is that the rate of the land is Rs.1,50,000 per Kanal because of its future potential value situated close to Abadi of the Village and the statement of the Patwari to that effect has been ignored by the learned Referee Judge. The learned Referee Judge has also dismissed the same on the ground of limitation which was not a correct step because once it was referred by the Collector to the Referee Judge the latter was not competent to enter into the discussion on point of limitation because the law on this point is well settled as it is the Collector who is competent to dismiss a reference petition when it is found time barred but once he waved/forfeited such right and did refer the petition to the Referee Judge then he was estopped by his conduct to raise this objection and the Referee Judge himself was not competent to conclude that the petition is time barred. Apart the above, the question as to whether the appellants have been fairly compensated or not, the learned Referee Judge has relied upon the Revenue Record and evidence collected at the trial. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents produced judgments in R.F.As. Nos.32, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 19. 29 and 28 of 1997, placed on record, A wherein a Division Bench of this Court has upheld the compensation amount already determined through the same award as the same amount has been granted in the present case as well, thus there is no room left for taking another view. In these circumstances no case for interference is made out, therefore, this appeal fails which is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./103/P Appeal dismissed.