1994 PLP 131 (CLC)
Mian M. AZAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 131 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | Mian M. AZAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 131 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 131 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 131 (CLC) (Mian M. AZAM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Anwarul Haq Abdul Wahid Chaudhary and Riaz Kayani for Petitioners.
- Arshad Malik, Legal Adviser of L.DA. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 4, 6 & 23‑‑‑Acquisition of land‑‑‑Property in dispute was to be used for widening road which really was very essential for easy flow of traffic ‑‑‑Interest of owner of land was also to be safeguarded as he was entitled to get alternate land and reasonable compensation under law‑‑‑Direction was issued to Authorities concerned to accommodate owner of land in dispute by giving him suitable alternate land of his choice in some Government scheme and reasonable compensation within next six months‑‑‑Owner of land till then would not be dispossessed from property in question.
Judgment & Decree
Arshad Malik, Legal Adviser of L.DA. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th January, 1993. This order shall dispose of (1) W.P. 4473/84 (Mian M. Azam v. Commissioner, etc.). (2) W.P. 4483/84 (Dil Muhammad v. Government of Punjab). (3) W.P. 4848/84 (Abdul Majid v. Commissioner), and (4) W.P. 1250/90 (Hafiz Abdul Ghafoor v. Government of the Punjab etc.) together as common questions of law and facts are involved in these matters.
2. The history of the cases shows beyond doubt that the respondent/Departments are willing and ready to accommodate the present petitioners by giving them some alternate plots and compensation. This offer was accepted by the petitioners. However, the petitioners want to get alternate land of their choice. Several meetings were arranged under the direction of this Court between the petitioners and the respondent/Departments. However, the controversy could not be resolved for one reason or the other. The fact remains that the respondents do want to accommodate the petitioners by giving them alternate land and compensation. There is thus, no dispute about the accommodation of the petitioners at the place other than the property in dispute. The property in dispute has to be used for widening the road which is really very essential for the easy flow of the traffic. At the same time the interest of the petitioners shall have also to be safeguarded. They are definitely entitled .to get alternate land and reasonable compensation under the law. This being so a direction shall issue to the respondents to accommodate the petitioners by giving them suitable alternate, land of their choice in some Government Scheme and reasonable compensation within next six months. Till then the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the property is question. This arrangement has been accepted by the parties and their learned counsel. With these remarks, these petitions stand disposed of on the basis of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties in the above terms. H.B.T./M‑1192/L Order accordingly.