2009 PLP 244 (MLD)
Malik ZULFIQAR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Communication Islamabad and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 244 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Malik ZULFIQAR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Communication Islamabad and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 244 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 244 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 244 (MLD) (Malik ZULFIQAR — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Communication Islamabad and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ghulam Jillani for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Dispute regarding Khasra number of acquired land
Petitioner claimed ownership of two Kanals and one Marla from rectangle No.54 which was entered in revenue record as 54/26
Nature of dispute in question was without Khasra No.54 was different from Khasra No.54/26 falling in the same rectangle
Record revealed that Khasra No.54 was acquired in the year 1972, in entirety with full measurement given in the notification
Such disputed question could only be resolved through measurement and enquiry, which could only be done through the suit
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 also had provided mechanism for resolution of disputes arising out of the process
Said number as a whole was shown in record to have been acquired and compensation paid
No finding could be recorded that the disputed Khasra number was not acquired and the same was different to that given in the notification
Grievance of the petitioner thus could not be redressed by exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.
The petitioner claims ownership of two Kanals and one Marla from rectangle No.54, Killa Nos. 5, 6 and 15 which is entered in revenue record as 54/26. That this land is in possession of respondent N6.2 without acquisition and payment of compensation at present it is road leading from Lodhran to Bahawalpur. That petitioner and his other family members are owners in the revenue record and respondents are reaping benefit from the surplus land. Prayed for direction to make payment of compensation or to hand over the surplus land.
2. Conversely, respondent No.2 claims no concern with the land as in revenue papers it was shown in possession of District Council. That in the original notification for acquisition of land in year, 1972 the said Khasra number was acquired and find mention in it as Khasra No.54 which was acquired as a whole and compensation was awarded; that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised where efficacious remedy would be available.
3. Heard. The nature of dispute in question is if the Khasra No.54 is different to Khasra No.54/26 falling in the same rectangle. It is matter of record that No.54 was acquired in the year, 1972, in entirety with full measurement given in the notification. This question could only be resolved through measurement and enquiry, which could only be done through the suit. The Land Acquisition Act also provides mechanism for resolution for disputes arising out of the process. The said number as a whole is shown to have been acquired and compensation paid. No finding can be recorded that the disputed Khasra number was not acquired and the same is different to that given in the notification.
4. As discussed above, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be redressed by exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. H.B.T./Z-38/L Petition dismissed.