Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 3071 = 1980 SLD 3071 = 1980 SCMR 330                            

Civil Petition No. 166 of 1979, decided on 27th October, 1979. (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 29th May, 1979 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1061 of 1978).
Presented By:  Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Iqbal Kowkab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner. Tanveer Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate-General (Punjab) for
Respondents..

MIRZA KHAN-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB-Respondent

Law: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)

Section: 9(3)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)  S. 9 (3)-Acquisition of land-Notice-Injunction ad interim Personal notice served on petitioner though not placed before trial Court, yet High Court examining such Aspect of case carefully in revision-Findings of High Court prima facie not suffering from any legal defect or principle of universal application Conditions for grant of temporary injunction being not satisfied, petition dismissed in circumstances-Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185 (3) [Injunction]. Date of hearing : 27th October, 1979.                                                                                                                    ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-A plaintiff has, through this petition for leave to appeal called in question the order passed by the Lahore High Court on 29th May, 1979 rejecting his revision, against refusal of the learned lower Courts to grant him temporary injunction. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents (Provincial Government and its functionaries) from "occupying/acquiring" his land. His main plea was that a personal notice under section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as distin guished from a public notice, was not served on him. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application for temporary injunction on a finding that section 9 of the Act had been complied with. In appeal it was held that petitioner's case was prima facie weak and that the land having been acquired for public purpose, balance of convenience was not in his favour. A learned Single Judge in the High Court held that not only a notice was given as a public notice' but also that "it was duly served upon the persons interested in the land" Sthat "Mirza Khan petitioner was duly informed of the notice but he refused to receive the same" : that according to a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register