2007 PLP 3157 (YLR)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus WAHID BAKHSH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3157 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus WAHID BAKHSH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 3157 (YLR)?
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 3157 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3157 (YLR) (GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus WAHID BAKHSH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Petitioner.
- Malik Muhammad Hanif Ghaffari for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd June, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.4, 11 & 18
Application for restoration of reference
Land was acquired and award of acquisition was announced
Land owners, dissatisfied with said award filed reference under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which reference was dismissed for non-prosecution and application for its restoration was also dismissed
Another application for restoration, however, was allowed
Effect
By allowing said application, previous application was restored and not the reference
Revision petition was allowed with observation, that application for restoration of reference, would be deemed to 'be pending before the Trial Court, which would be disposed of in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties this case is being treated as Pacca Case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that for acquisition of the respondents' land an Award was announced on 18-12-19'
82. Respondents filed a Reference Application under section 18 of the Acquisition of Lands Act, which was dismissed on 12-12-1987 for non-prosecution. For its restoration an application was filed on 22-10-1989, which was also dismissed on 11-7-1993. Thereafter, another application was filed by the respondents for the restoration of the said application but the same is not available on record, therefore, no date is ascertainable. However, this application was allowed on 6-1-2000. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 29-6-2000 and an ex parte decree was passed on 21-11-2000. Petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex parte decree and order dated 6-1-2000. The learned Senior Civil Judge vide order, dated 21-2-2006 allowed petitioner's application, set aside ex parte decree dated 21-11-2000, however, restored the original Reference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although order dated 6-1-2000 was passed in his absence, however, he-has no objection if this order .is sustained but the fact would remain that as a result of this order respondents application for restoration of their earlier application would be deemed to have been accepted but not the reference itself.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for. the respondents submits that this objection was never. raised by the petitioner at the appropriate forum.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The original reference was dismissed for non- prosecution on 12-12-1987. Restoration application was filed on 22-10-1989, it was dismissed on 11-7-1993. For the revival of this application another application was filed but its date is not traceable. This is the crucial application which was allowed on 5-1-2000. Meaning thereby that by allowing this application petitioner's previous application was restored and not the original reference. In this view of the matter, this revision is allowed with the observation that respondents application for restoration of their reference shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Trial Court, which shall be disposed of in accordance with law. No order as to costs. H.B.T.G-64/L Order accordingly.