1994 PLP 1315 (CLC)
Malik NASIM AHMAD AHEER and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1315 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | Malik NASIM AHMAD AHEER and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1315 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1315 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1315 (CLC) (Malik NASIM AHMAD AHEER and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Hassan Gulshan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 3.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Installation of towers and laying down transmission lines over private property‑‑‑Payment of compensation‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Owners of land aggrieved of action of Authority of installing two towers and laying down high powered transmission lines over their land, had challenged such action of Authority in Constitutional petition‑‑‑Owners had alleged that Authority had no lawful authority to install towers and transmission lines over their land without their consent and without paying them due compensation‑‑‑Authority contended that it could lay down transmission lines and construct poles which was work of public nature and that matter of compensation could only be decided by Deputy Commissioner under S. 14 of the Act‑‑‑Owners of land having failed to avail remedy available to them under S. 14 of the Act Constitutional petition as such filed by them was not competent‑‑‑High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner that if some application/representation was filed by the said owners of land the same was to be decided within two months from the date of its filing.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent No.
3. Date of hearing: 18th January, 1994. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land measuring 1,391 Kanals situated in Wards Nos. 7 and 8 of Municipal Committee, Jauhrabad District Khushab. They, feeling aggrieved of the action of the respondents in installing two towers and laying down a high‑powered transmission line, have filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, has contended, that the respondents have no lawful authority either to construct any tower or to pass transmission line over the land of the petitioners without their consent and without paying them due compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in law respondent No. 1 can lay down the transmission lines and construct poles which are works of public nature. So far as the payment of compensation is concerned, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that under section 14 of the WAPDA Act, 1958, the matter of compensation can only be decided by the Deputy Commissioner but the petitioners have failed to avail of that remedy. . .
4. No comments on merits of the case need be made at this stage as I am of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is well‑taken. According to section 14 (2) of the WAPDA Act, respondent No. 1 is bound to tender or pay compensation for damages suffered by the land‑owners and in case of any dispute in this respect, the matter has to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner of the District.
5. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioners have not availed of that remedy. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, explained the reason for not doing so that the petitioners were under the impression that the Deputy Commissioner can only award damages for loss to the plants and trees standing on the land and not for deprivation of the use of the land. This contention of the learned counsel is not well‑founded. On its plain wording, section 14 of the WAPDA Act requires payment of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by the land owners on account of laying down the transmission lines or construction of poles. Obviously, therefore, if the land owner is deprived of use of his land, it would be a matter falling within the scope of section 14 of the Act. . As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is held to be not competent at this stage and is disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner that if some application/representation is filed before him by the petitioners, it shall be decided within two months from the date of its filing. It shall, however, be open to the petitioners to approach this Court, if need so arises. No order as to costs. H.B:T/N‑226/L Petition dismissed