| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3109 1970 SLD 3109 = 1970 PLD 321 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1619 of 1965, heard on 12th May 1969.
Presented By: Mushtaq Hussain and Shameem Hussain Kadri, JJ
M. Aslam Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Writ Petition No. 1619 of 1965, heard on 12th May 1969.
Presented By: Mushtaq Hussain and Shameem Hussain Kadri, JJ
M. Aslam Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
COL. BASHIR HUSSAIN AND 10 OTHERS- Petitioners
VERSUS
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, LAHORE IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents
Law: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)
Section: 12, 45
(a) Interpretation of Statutes-Law prescribing particular mode of doing an act-Requirements of law fulfilled only by doing act in manner prescribed. (b) Interpretation of----statutes-Limitation- Whether provision with regard to performance of particular act within certain time, obligatory or directory-Depends on facts of each case and on relation of provision to general object intended to be secured by Act. There is a string of rulings dilating upon the question whether a provision with regard to the performance of a particular act within a certain limit of time is obligatory or directory. A study of these decisions, however, leads one to the irresistible conclusion that Courts have, as far as possible, 2efrained from laying down any general principle with regard to the directory or obligatory nature of period of time so fixed. One has, therefore, to determine each case on its own facts and for that purpose has to look into the subject-matter of the statute with a view to determining the importance of the provision of law that has been disregarded and finding out the relation of that provision to the general object intended to be secured by the Act. If the object can be secured even without compliance with such a provision, it could be safely dubbed as directory. If that be not so, the provision would be imperative or obligatory and non-compliance with it would result in nullification or vitiation of the act which affects the rights of a citizen. Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner 29 L J (Ch.) 827 ref. (c) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss. 12 & 45-Notice under S. 12-Imperative provision of law-Mere affixation of notice on Notice Board of Union Council of area but record not indicating any effort on part of process-server to serve notice on person concerned-Held: no valid service of notice. The giving of a notice under section 12 of the Land Acquisi tion Act, 1894, is an imperative provision of law and read with the proviso to section 18 it becomes obligatory upon the Collector to give notice of the making of the award within such time as would leave enough respite to a person to file an application under section 18 within a period of six months from the…