| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3824 2025 SLD 3824 = 2025 SCP 302 = 2026 PLD 113 |
Civil Appeal No. 101-K of 2022 (Against the judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur in 1st Civil Appeal No.D-19/2002)
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Abdul Baseer (R-2b), Abdul Shaheed (R-2c), Abdul Kabir (R-2d), Abdul Basit (R-2e), Abdul Raqeeb (R-8b), Hamdullah [R-14d(ii)], Ibbadullah [R-14d(iii)], Rushadullah [R14d(iv)], Sanaullah [R-14d(v)], Muhammad Umar (R-16b), Abdul Hameed (R-26), Shah Muhammad (R-27), Muhammad Siddiq (R29), Abdul Rahim (R-32), Ghulam Hyder (R35), Ali Hassan (R-38), Ubedullah (R-39), Habib-ur-Rehman (R-41), Muhammad Ilyas (R-42), Ameeruddin (R-43), Shamsul Haq Indhar (R-45), Naeemullah (R-48), Abdul Shakoor (R-49), Abdul Wahid (R-50), Nazeer Ahmed (R-51), Muhammad Hassan (R-52), Umme Muslimeen (R-53) and Muhammad Mudasir (R-54)
Province of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer ............Petitioner
VERSUS
Abdul Tawab & others …Respondent(s)
Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section: 34
Tagline : Discussion: (1) While considering the grounds for condonation of delay, no preferential treatment may be accorded to the Government departments (2) The unpersuasive justification of administrative delays has almost become a trend which is consistently pleaded in almost every case. (3) The law aids and assists vigilant not those who are sleeping or slumbering.
Summary:
The appellant challenged the High Court judgment enhancing compensation in a land acquisition case. The appeal was dismissed for being time-barred, with the condonation application rejected due to lack of sufficient cause for delay. The Court upheld the compensation award and emphasized strict adherence to limitation periods, applying the principle that the law aids the vigilant, not those who delay.
Core Points:
- The appeal against enhanced compensation in land acquisition was filed beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period.
- The condonation application failed to provide convincing reasons for the delay.
- The High Court had correctly considered all evidence and legal provisions, including Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding interest and additional compensation.
- The Court emphasized that governmental departments must be as vigilant as ordinary litigants regarding limitation rules.
- The Latin maxim “Leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subserviunt” was cited to stress the law helps the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.
- Appeals filed routinely late without sufficient cause are discouraged and may indicate mala fide.
- The appeal was dismissed both on merits and limitation grounds.
Law and Section Table
| Law Name | Section Number | Citation/Note |
|---|---|---|
| Land Acquisition Act | 34 | Interest rate 6% p.a., 15% acquisition and compensation charges |
| Limitation Law (General) | N/A | Principle of strict adherence to limitation periods cited |
| Supreme Court Precedent | N/A | Regional Police Officer v. Riaz Hussain Bukhari (2024 SCMR 1021) regarding condonation of delay |