1991 PLP 275 (SCMR)
PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others — Petitioners Versus Late Ch. MUHAMMAD AHSAN through his legal heir and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 275 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others — Petitioners Versus Late Ch. MUHAMMAD AHSAN through his legal heir and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance (XIII of 1946) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 275 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance (XIII of 1946) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 275 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 275 (SCMR) (PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others — Petitioners Versus Late Ch. MUHAMMAD AHSAN through his legal heir and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Siddiqi, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
- M.Munir Piracha, Advocate, Supreme Court with Mehr Khan, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.171,182, 183 of 1989).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No. 172 of 1989).
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1990.
- M.A. Siddiqi, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
- M.Munir Piracha, Advocate, Supreme Court with Mehr Khan, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.171,182, 183 of 1989).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11 12-1988 in RSA. No.151/85, RFA No.75/73, C.R.1200 and C.R. No.1201 of 1976 respectively).
Defence of India Act, 1939
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Plaintiffs' claim as set out in their suits was that in 1942, their lands were requisitioned under Defence of India Act, 1939, for the construction of an aerodrome, for which they were paid yearly lease money as compensation upto 1946
Yearly lease money was not paid to them after 1946, under the pretext that land had been acquired and that though no notification of acquisition had been issued, defendants had appointed an arbitrator, who had worked out compensation payable to them all of which action they considered to be illegal and without lawful authority
Plaintiffs' further claim was that they were entitled to recover lease money from the defendants at the specified rate from three years preceding the institution of suit till the decision
Plaintiffs' suits were decreed
Appeals and revisions filed by defendants were dismissed
Leave to appeal-- Matter being old one relating to year 1946, Government was not able to locate and file relevant notification under Defence of India Act, 1939 or the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance XIII of 1946, acquiring the land of plaintiffs for the purpose of construction of aerodrome in Sargodha-- Aerodrome having been constructed only question that remained was, whether legal formalities were complied with, when acquisition proceedings were initiated
Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑This order will dispose of four petitions, namely, C.P.L.A. Nos.171‑R, 181‑R, 182‑R and 183‑R of 1989, filed by the Government of Pakistan, seeking leave to appeal against four separate judgments passed by the Lahore High Court all dated 11‑12‑1988.
2. Respondents in all these four cases claim to be occupancy tenants of Chak No. 24 Janubi, Tehsil and District Sargodha. It is their case that in 1942 their lands were requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1939, and the Rules thereunder, for the construction of an aerodrome, and they were paid yearly lease money as compensation upto 1946. It is further alleged by them that after 1946 the yearly lease money was not paid, under the pretext that the land had been acquired and that though no notification of acquisition had been issued, the petitioners had appointed an arbitrator who had worked out compensation payable to them, all of which action they considered to be illegal and without lawful authority. The respondents through separate suits filed by them called upon the Civil Court to declare the so‑called acquisition and arbitration proceedings as illegal and without lawful authority and by way of consequential relief prayed for a decree for recovery of lease money from the defendants at the rate of Rs.52 per killa from three years preceding the institution of the suit till its decision. All the said suits were decreed and the appeals and revisions filed by the petitioner were also dismissed.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents in all the cases. This is an old matter that relates to the year 1946. It appears that the Pakistan Government was not able to locate and file the relevant notification under the Defence of India Act, 1939, or the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, XIII of 1946, acquiring the lands of the respondents in question for the purpose of the construction of the aerodrome in Sargodha. Since the aerodrome has been constructed and the only question that remains is as regards whether legal formalities were complied with, when the acquisition proceedings were initiated, we grant leave to appeal in all these cases to look into the whole case. The appeals shall be heard on the basis of the present record. The Deputy Attorney General is directed to trace out the old record relating to the acquisition proceedings from the offices of the Collector, Sargodha, and the Commissioner, Sargodha, and to place the same on record. He should also trace out the relevant notifications that were issued in connection with the acquisition proceedings and also place the same on the record. Both the parties shall be at liberty to file such further documents which they consider necessary for the full and final disposal of the cases. A.A./P‑130/S Leave granted.