Pakistan Case Law← Search
2005 SCMR 1320

HABIB ULLAH vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and others

Citation2005 SCMR 1320
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,753/L of 2000 I
Date2003-03-03
Judge(s)Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Tanvir Ahmed Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. ' 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.

2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that the Lahore Development Authority acquired land inclusive of the petitioner measuring 21 Kanals, 10 Majlas 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.

3. ' 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.

4. ' 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.

5. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only β€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerΒ·PrivacyΒ·TermsΒ·Search