| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5976 2024 SLD 5976 = 2024 PLD 499 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1857 of 2022, C.M.A. No. 3899 of 2022 and C.M.A. No. 1032 of 2023 in C.P. No. 1857 of 2022, decided on 15th February, 2024. (Against judgment dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in I.C.A. No. 13 of 2021).
Present: Yahya Afridi, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Sanaullah Zahid, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the Government of Punjab. Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record /Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 5. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Kandwal, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 6.
Civil Petition No. 1857 of 2022, C.M.A. No. 3899 of 2022 and C.M.A. No. 1032 of 2023 in C.P. No. 1857 of 2022, decided on 15th February, 2024. (Against judgment dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in I.C.A. No. 13 of 2021).
Present: Yahya Afridi, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Ayesha A. Malik, JJ
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Sanaullah Zahid, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the Government of Punjab. Tariq Aziz, Advocate-on-Record /Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 5. Malik Ghulam Mustafa Kandwal, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 6.
REHM DAD---Petitioner
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others-Respondents
Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section: I,18,54
Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972
Section: XII,3(2)
Law: Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983
Section: 14,15
Law: West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957
Section: 8
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)-------Ss. 18 & 54---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3(2), proviso---Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, Rr. 14 & 15---Intra Court Appeal ('ICA')--Maintainability---Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the ICA on the ground that the same is not maintainable in light of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 ('LRO') as Sections 18 and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LAA') provides the right of reference and appeal respectively to the petitioner against the order of the Member, Board Of Revenue ('BOR')---Division Bench further found that the petitioner even had the right to file a review under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 ('BOR Act')---Validity---Essential requirement to invoke the proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO is to see whether the right of at least one appeal, revision or review is available to the original order in a proceeding where the relevant law is applicable--In relation to the applicability of the law, the determining factor is the order with which the proceedings under the relevant statute commenced---Hence, in terms of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO, the settled principle is that the law applicable shall be the law by which the proceeding started or commenced, which forms the basis of the original order---In the instant case, the petitioner moved an application under Rules 14 and 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 ('1983 Rules') before the BOR, which, was dismissed---It may be noted that the 1983 Rules were made under Section 55 of the LAA---It is established law that the rules framed under the relevant statute are an integral part of the parent Act---If the very existence of rules is based on legislation, then it shall be the said statute, including its rules, which will be the law applicable to proceedings within the meaning of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the LRO---Hence, in the existing matter, both the LAA and 1983 Rules are laws applicable to proceedings before the BOR--Scope of Section 18 of the LAA is very limited and restricted towards the subjectmatter of measurement and compensation of…