Claim of compensation

2024 CLC 239 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 18, 23 & 30Land AcquisitionReference to CourtClaim of compensationFailure to prove ownership over acquired landReferee Judge declined the claim of the appellant as the land was not owned by him

Collector referred the matter under S.30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to District Judge for the determination of ownership of land

Validity

Claim of the present appellant was that an area of approximately 2.60 acres owned by his father was acquired by WAPDA for which no compensation was paid

Record showed that the father of appellant expired in the year 1996, whereas, admittedly, the land was acquired in the years 1974, 1985 and 1989

Moot question would be as to why his father, who was alive at the relevant time, never came forward to claim any compensation for the acquired land

Appellant never lodged any claim nor came forward before any of the authorities including the Land Acquisition Officer during the entire proceedings, and instead had chosen to avail the remedy of a complaint before the Ombudsman which otherwise, covered by a special law, was never available

Mere statement to the effect that no notice was ever served would not suffice

Appellant had though deposed that he even objected to the amount of compensation and availed the remedy of a Reference under S.18 of the Act, before the Land Acquisition Officer; however, nothing had been placed on record to justify such factual assertion

How such a Reference was filed and what happened in those proceedings, the entire record was silent, whereas, appellant had also failed to assist in any manner on such aspect of the matter

Deposition of appellant reflected that he was not even aware that as to when and from whom the land in question was purchased by his father

Further, whether the seller was by himself a bona fide allottee or not was also unclear

Admittedly, the entire piece of land, the one which had been acquired, and even the remaining which had not been acquired was owned by Agricultural Department

Though a claim had been made that it was allotted by the Colonization Officer; however, no allotment papers had been produced in evidence

Even in the documents referred in the examination in chief which were purportedly filed with the Land Acquisition Officer in its reference under S.18 of the Act, there was no mention of any allotment of the land

In fact the appellant's case was that it was a purchased land, whereas, reliance had been placed on a mutation entry dated 6.3.1990

Per settled law the original ownership of the person from whom the title was being derived had to be proved and only then the subsequent ownership or for that matter the mutation entries could be looked into

Mutation entry was not a document of title, and it by itself did not confer any right, title or interest, and the burden of proof laid upon the person, in whose favor it was mutated to establish the validity and genuineness of transfer in his/her favor

If the foundation was illegal and defective then entire structure built on such foundation, having no value in the eyes of law, would fall on the ground

Moreover, the mutation entry in question was of the year 1990, whereas, as per the award, the land in Survey No.158 was acquired on 1.3.1974; in Survey No. 160 on 12.10.1989 and in Survey No.199 on 28.10.1985; hence, the same was even of no help to the case of the appellant

Per settled law when Government acquired immovable property under the Land Acquisition Act, it was for the person claiming compensation to establish his title affirmatively

To support claims to lands acquired under S.30 of the Act, the claimants must show title or in the absence of title deeds effective occupation

Nothing to that effect had been placed on record in the present case

Record showed that the entire land was in the name of Agriculture Department, and even if it was allotted to someone, that was without any No Objection Certificate from them, whereas, since the first acquisition in 1974 till the year 2000, the appellant was in deep sleep and never contested the matter at any forum until he approached the office of the Ombudsman

In that case the claim, if any, was too late in the day, even if no limitation applied; whereas, the father, the actual purchaser of the land as claimed, never came forward to seek any compensation, though at that point of time he was alive

Appellant had failed to establish and prove his claim regarding ownership of land in question

Appeal was dismissed, accordingly.

2015 PLC 101 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 3Claim of compensationPre-conditions

Three expressions used in S.3 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, are material (i) "personal injury" (ii) "accident" (iii) "arising out of and in the course of employment"

In order to claim compensation under S.3 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claimant must meet all the three material facts.