Home Maxims & Terms Requisition of property meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Requisition of property

Requisition of property legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2016 CLC 1408 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
S. 4(1)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117, 118, 119 & 120Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.17Requisition of propertyFact, proof ofOnus to prove

Properties owned by deceased were requisitioned on 01-07-1947 and were subsequently acquired vide notification dated 27-06-1955

Compensation fixed by government was received by owners of properties

Later on, sole arbitrator was appointed who gave his award

Successors-in-interest of the deceased owners of properties, being dissatisfied with the award, assailed the same

Plea raised by authorities was that appellants failed to prove that they were legal heirs of the deceased owners and amount of compensation was received under protest

Validity

Burden to prove their authority to claim compensation and their status as legal heirs of owners of properties in question was on appellants in terms of Arts.118 & 119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

If no evidence was asked in such regard, it was the appellants who would fail in absence of any document showing undisputedly their authority and legal heirship

Merely showing names of some persons as legal heirs of deceased in some court proceedings, which were not concerned with any issue of heirship between the parties, normally would not make them entitled to inheritance of that person under any law, unless they were declared so under competent court of law

Appellants failed to establish themselves as legal heirs or successors-in-interest of the original owners of subject properties

No document was produced by appellants to satisfy that amount was accepted under protest

If that was the position, the owners should have immediately filed appeal against the same within stipulated time of 15 days but for years together there was silence after seeking compensation

Nothing was available on record to show that in terms of Art.17 of Limitation Act, 1908, appellants filed any suit for recovery of compensation against authorities within one year of acquisition of their properties

High Court set aside award announced by sole arbitrator

Appeal was dismissed under circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Requisition of property", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124957152

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Requisition of property"

PLD 1964
Writ Petition No. 154 of 1962, decided on 23rd November 1962.

P L D 1964 Dacca 24

MD. AMIR HOSSAIN‑PETITIONER Versus PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: (c) East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (XIII of 1948) as amended by East Bengal (Emergency) Requisi tion of Property (Amendment) Ordinance, 1960, S. 3 proviso‑ Word "proposal"‑Refers to proposal for starting requisition proceedings in respect of properties required by requiring body --Such proposal requires approval of provincial Government.
PLD 1963
Writ Petition No. 53 of 1960, decided on 6th July 1961.

P L D 1963 Dacca 525

MUHAMMAD TOTA MIA‑ — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER

Court: (e) Mala fides‑Cannot be inferred merely from fact that acquiring authority, elected to acquire land under enactment enabling payment of lesser compensation than another enactment East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Ordinance (XXV of 1959)‑Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)
PLD 1958
First Appeal No. 65 of 1953, decided on 7th February 1957, (with cross‑objection) against the decree of V. Hussain, Dist rict judge, Dacca.

PLD 1958 Dacca 15

MRS. KHAMA TAHERA BANU‑Appellant Versus COMPENSATION OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF EAST BENGAL‑Respondent

Court:
PLD 1962
Writ Petition No. 53 of 060, decided on 6th July 1961.

P L D 1962 Dacca 152

MUHAMMAD TOTA MIA‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS Respondents

Court:
PLD 1969
Civil Revision No. 1424 of 1966

P L D 1969 Dacca 764

PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN‑Petitioner Versus ASHRAF ALI AND OTHERS‑Opposite‑Parties

Court: It is true that both these two Acts East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deal with similar subject‑matter in some respect and the scheme contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be referred for a clear understanding of the scheme contained in the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act as both of them are in the same field. This, however, cannot persuade the Court to deviate from the plain meaning of a particular section of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act. Section 7(e) of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Proper ty Act as it stood in 1964 clearly lays down that the assessment of compensation for acquisition of property has to be on the basis of the market value of the property during the 24 months preced ing the date of the service of notice under section 5(la). Any contrary scheme in the provision of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applicable in supersession of the clear meaning of section 7(e) of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act. The large series of amendments of this section 7(e) and its ultimate adoption in its present form since 1963 strengthens the decision on import and clearly indicates the anxiety of the Legislature in providing a citizen of a somewhat fair compensation and to liberalise the scheme.
PLD 1964
Writ Petition No. 175 of 1962, decided on 30th November 1962.

P L D 1964 Dacca 132

LUTFUNNISSA‑Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DACCA AND ANOTHER — Respondents

Court: (b) East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (X111 of 1948), as amended by East Bengal (Emergency) Requisi tion of Property (Amendment) Ordinance 1960, Ss. 3 & 4‑A ---Order under S. 3 appealable under S. 4‑A‑Person failing to avail of remedy‑Cannot invoke provisions of Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962) unless impugned order be wholly without jurisdiction.
SCMR 1968
Civil Appeal No. 10-D of 1967, decided on 20th November 1967.

1968 S CM R 307

THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus RAJABUDDIN AHIMED-Respondent

Court: High Court
PLD 1960
Civil Appeal No. 4-D of 1960, decided on Ist June 1960.

P L D 1960 Supreme Court (Pak

PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN-Appellant Versus ABDUL AZIZ CHOWDHURY AND OTHERS- Respondent

Court:
CLC 1994
Writ Petition No. 5537 of 1992, heard on 30th November, 1993.

1994 C L C 715

Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1964
Civil Appeal No. 6‑D of 1963, decided on 10th March 1964.

P L D 1964 Supreme Court 475

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑Appellant Versus THE PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS

Court: