1985 PLP 165 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB — Petitioner Versus MUNAWAR SULTANA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 165 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB — Petitioner Versus MUNAWAR SULTANA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 165 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 165 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 165 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB — Petitioner Versus MUNAWAR SULTANA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Nusratullah, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th June, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26-5-1977, passed in Regular First Appeal No. 53 of 1966).
Art. 185(3)--Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S.18--Land acquired seventeen years backward of compensation announced by Collector on 2-5-1961--Compensation determined by District Judge in 1965--Appeal by Provincial Government against order of District Judge determining compensation before High Court, dismissed in 1977--Leave to appeal to Supreme Court by Provincial Government--Petitioner unable; to point out any flaw in judgment of High Court--Supreme Court dismissed petition for leave to appeal with observations that Government should have shown more consideration for a citizen, whose land if not acquired compulsorily by Government, would have been by now worth millions. Nemo for! Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM FIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The facts giving rise to this petition are that land measuring 17 Acres belonging to different owners (including the respondents) situated in the Revenue Estate of Bandara, Teshil and District Rawalpindi, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi, on behalf of the Government of Punjab: The award was announced by the Collector on 2-5-1961 and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.1,451 per Kanal for 'Lapara' type of land and Rs.1,269 per Kanal for 'Maira' type of land. The respondents made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, requiring that the matter be referred to the Court for the determination of 1 the compensation awarded to them. The matter was accordingly referred to a learned Civil Judge, who framed certain issues and after recording some evidence sent the case to the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, who determined the rate of compensation @ Rs.3,000 and Rs.2,000 per Kanal, respectively by his order, dated 11-2-1965. The petitioner filed an R.F.A. against this order before the High Court which was dismissed vide its order, dated 26-6-1977. This should have vended the matter but somehow the Provincial Government, which had; acquired land of the respondents against their will as far back as 1960, giving them interest only at the rate of 5%s per annum for the compulsory acquisition, felt aggrieved at the dismissal of their appeal by the High Court, and surprising as it may seem, the Government chose to file a petition for leave to appeal before this Court, for getting the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents decreased, after 17 years of the acquisition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, did not have much to urge because the High Court had already dismissed the petitioner's appeal and the counsel was not able to point out any flaw in the impugned judgment; We feel that the Government should have shown more consideration for a citizen, whose land, if not acquired compulsorily by the Government, would have been by now worth millions. We, therefore, dismiss the petition with `tie abovementioned observations. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.