Pakistan Case Law← Search
PLD 2004 Peshawar 152

SHER AMAN and otherss vs PROJECT DIRECTOR, MARDAN, and others

CitationPLD 2004 Peshawar 152
CourtPeshawar High Court
Case No.Regular First Appeal No,25 of 1997
Date2004-04-30
Judge(s)Dost Muhammad Khan
ResultAppeal dismissed

1. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 10-12-1996 of the learned Referee Judge/Senior Civil Judge Swabi dismissing reference petition of the appellants in respect of the land acquired by the respondents wherein enhancement of compensation sought was refused.

2. Short facts are that the land of the appellants was acquired alongwith the land of the other adjacent co-owners for the compensation Rs,13,553 per Kanal through award dated 16-3-1991. The claim of the appellants is that the rate of the land is Rs,1,50,000 per Kanal because of its future potential value situated close to Abadi of the Village and the statement of the Patwari to that effect has been ignored by the learned Referee Judge. The learned Referee Judge has also dismissed the same on the ground of limitation which was not a correct step because once it was referred by the Collector to the Referee Judge .The latter was not competent to enter into the discussion on point of limitation because the law on this point is well settled as it is the Collector who is competent to dismiss a reference petition when it is found time barred but once he waved/forfeited such right and did refer the petition to the Referee Judge then he was estopped by his conduct to raise this objection and the Referee Judge himself was not competent to conclude that the petition is time barred.

2. Apart the above, the question as to whether the appellants have been fairly compensated or not, the learned Referee Judge has relied upon the Revenue Record and evidence collected at the trial.

3. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents produced judgments in R.F.As. Nos.32, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 19, 29 and 28 of 1997, placed on record, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has upheld the compensation amount already determined through the same award as the same amount has been granted in the present case as well, thus there is no room left for taking another view.

4. In these circumstances no case for interference is made out, therefore, this appeal fails which is dismissed with no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search