1989 PLP 1062 (SCMR)
Syed NAZAR ABBAS NAQVI Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1062 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Syed NAZAR ABBAS NAQVI Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1062 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1062 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1062 (SCMR) (Syed NAZAR ABBAS NAQVI Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafiq Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1988. ''
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 4‑4‑1()R3 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in I.CA. No.37 of 1983). ‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 6‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Acquisition of property‑‑Abandonment or failure of purpose for which property was acquired‑ Effect‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether on the abandonment or failure of the purpose for which a property was acquired, same should not be returned to original owner; whether acquisitioning Authority could utilize such property for another public purpose; whether in case the purpose for 'different use was wholly or partly self‑enrichment of acquiring Authority at the cost of the original owner, would not be public purpose and; whether in view of the explanation that the change of purpose took place after a long time since acquisition, therefore, petitioner could not have filed a writ petition earlier, cannot now be accepted; and thus whether petitioner's Constitutional petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of laches.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑After hearing the learned counsel at some length in support of this petition, we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal for the examination inter alia of the following questions: (a) Whether on the abandonment or failure of the purpose for which a property is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it should not be returned to the original owner; (b) Whether the acquisitioning authority can utilise such property for another public purpose: (c) Whether in case the purpose for different use is wholly or partly self enrichment of the acquiring authority at the cost of the original owner, will it be public purpose: (d) Whether in view of the explanation that the change of purpose took place , after a long time since acquisition, therefore, the petitioner could not have filed a writ petition earlier, cannot now be accepted; and thus whether the petitioner's constitutional petition was liable to be dismissed on ground of laches. These questions together with other related questions require examination, Leave to appeal is. accordingly, granted. Security Rs.5,
000. Leave has already been granted in two other similar cases as C.P. 57‑R of 1988, leave to appeal was granted on 27‑3‑1988 (now Civil Appeal No.40 of 1988) and C.P. 121‑R of 1988 wherein leave to appeal was granted on 10‑5‑?
988. All these cases to be heard together. Appeal in this case shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary documents. AA./N‑142/S Leave granted.