2007 PLP 240 (CLC)
GHULAB KHAN — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT GILGIT and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 240 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Northern Areas Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAB KHAN — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT GILGIT and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 240 (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 2007 PLP 240 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Northern Areas Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 240 (CLC) (GHULAB KHAN — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT GILGIT and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehsan Ali for Petitioner.
- A.-G. for Respondent No.1.
- Muhammad Riaz for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.
- We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate-General for respondents Nos.1 and 4 while respondents Nos.2 and 3 were represented by Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Advocate.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 11 & 18
Application for Reference
Collector (Deputy Commissioner) sent the application to Assistant Commissioner for comments and after receiving report from Assistant Commissioner dismissed application being time-barred
Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Collector was neither empowered to delegate his powers to any of subordinates nor the Assistant Commissioner stood anywhere in the Act
Collector committed illegality by sending the application to the Assistant Commissioner for comments/report
Judgment & Decree
MUZAFFAR ALI, J.
This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 5-3-2005, passed by the Collector Land Acquisition/Deputy Commissioner Gilgit, whereby the reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, stating time-barred. The facts leading to the writ petition are that, a piece of land owned by the petitioner was acquired by the respondents, the award was passed by the respondent No.1 on 20-9-2000 and amount of compensation was received by the petitioner on 18-7-2002 and after receiving the amount the petitioner filed an application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, before the respondent on 18-8-2002, whereby the petitioner prayed for reference to the Referee Court/District Judge. The respondent No.1 sent the application to the Assistant Commissioner, Gilgit for comments/report and after receiving report from Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.1 dismissed the application as non-maintainable and time-barred, hence, this writ petition. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate-General for respondents Nos.1 and 4 while respondents Nos.2 and 3 were represented by Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Advocate. The learned counsel urged that, the award dated 20-9-2002, was passed without complying with mandatory provisions like sections 6-7-9-11 and 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act as such the award is void and without jurisdiction. Hence no limitation runs to assail the same. Therefore, respondent No.1 has erred in law by holding the reference application to be time-barred, secondly he stated, that, the impugned order is unheard and as such it has been passed against well settled principle of "Audi alteram partem". On the other hand before going into the merits of the case, the learned A.-G. very rightly conceded that, the impugned order is unheard as such it has no legal sanction. The learned A.-G. also agreed to the view taken by the Court, that, respondent No.1 has committed illegality by sending the application to the Assistant Commissioner for comments/report, while under Land Acquisition Act, the respondent is neither empowered to delegate his powers to any subordinate of him nor the Assistant Commissioner stands anywhere in the Act. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the impugned order, dated 5-3-2003 is set aside, and the case is remanded to respondent No.1 to dispose of the same on merits after hearing the petitioner. F.B./123/P Petition allowed.