Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1985 SCMR 165

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB vs MUNAWAR SULTANA And Other

Citation1985 SCMR 165
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 508 of 1977 Regular First
Date1984-06-10
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain, M. S. H. Qureshi
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

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.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch