2005 PLP 1320 (SCMR)
HABIB ULLAH — Petitioner Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1320 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | HABIB ULLAH — Petitioner Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1320 (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 2005 PLP 1320 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1320 (SCMR) (HABIB ULLAH — Petitioner Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-2-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in I.C.A. No.971 of 2000).
Ss. 17(3) & 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Determination of compensation, a question of fact
Land owners being dissatisfied with the award in respect of orchards, filed Constitutional petition and Intra Court Appeal, which were dismissed by High Court
Petitioners had statutory remedy of reference against the award, provided under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Determination of compensation for trees was a question of fact which could not be re-determined in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction
Award having already been announced, the provision of S.17(3) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not violated
Petitioners failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the judgment warranting interference by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.-- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 20-2-2000 whereby I.C.A. No.971 of 2000 filed by the petitioner was dismissed maintaining the earlier determination of the learned Single Judge dated 21-10-1999. The facts briefly narrated are that the Lahore Development Authority acquired land inclusive of the petitioner measuring 21 Kanals, 10 Maflas to establish Jubili Town Housing Scheme and a notification in this regard was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The award for the land was announced on 28-11-1998. Subsequent thereto, award for the orchards was announced on 4-6-1999. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the latter award, took exception to the same by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through his order, dated 21-10-1999. The petitioner preferred aforesaid I.C.A. against the above order, which has also been dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court through the order, `dated 20-2-2000, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire documents annexed with this petition. Admittedly the award in this case for orchards was announced on 4-6-1999. The petitioner in the circumstances had got statutory remedy of reference provided under section 18 of the Act. The determination of compensation for trees is admittedly a question of fact which certainly cannot be made in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The argument of the learned counsel that the provision of section 17(3) of the Act had been violated is devoid of any force, as already stated the award in the terms has already been announced qua orchards. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference in the impugned judgment. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. M.H./H-79/S Petition dismissed.