| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLD 827 = 1996 CLC 1943 |
Lahore High Court
Intra Court Appeal No.24 of 1992, heard on 6th December, 1995.
Presented By: Before Munir A. Sheikh and Nasira Iqbal, JJ
Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner. Asif Chaudhry for
Respondents Nos. l and 2. Muhammad Bashir Ch., A.A.G. for
Respondent No.3. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Bajwa and Khan Muhammad Virk for
Respondents Nos.4 to 6.
Intra Court Appeal No.24 of 1992, heard on 6th December, 1995.
Presented By: Before Munir A. Sheikh and Nasira Iqbal, JJ
Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner. Asif Chaudhry for
Respondents Nos. l and 2. Muhammad Bashir Ch., A.A.G. for
Respondent No.3. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Bajwa and Khan Muhammad Virk for
Respondents Nos.4 to 6.
Mian ATTA ULLAH---Petitioner
VERSUS
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TRIBUNAL and 5 others---Respondents
Law: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)
Section: 48
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----S. 48---Locus poenitentiae, principle of---Applicability---Fresh acquisition proceedings were initiated on basis of agreement of parties through Notification of specified date---Subsequent notification issued under S. 48, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for withdrawal of fresh acquisition proceedings could not be sustainted for being contrary to what had been agreed upon between appellant and Authorities through agreement in pursuance of which suitable plot of equivalent value was to be given to appellant in lieu of his property being acquired---Fresh acquisition proceedings thus, could not have been withdrawn unilaterally and rule of locus poenitentiae was attracted in full force for appellant could not have been deprived of valuable right which had accrued to him-- Withdrawal of notification for fresh acquisition proceedings was, thus, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss. 18 & 12(2)---Earlier award relating to land in question made by Collector on 31-8-1973---Respondents filing reference before Development Authority Tribunal in 1982 against said award through Collector---Validity---Maximum period for filing reference was six months from date of said award-- Development Authority Tribunal was, thus, not vested. with jurisdiction or authority to entertain said reference, therefore, reference made by private respondents in 1982, was liable to be dismissed on that short ground---Even if person making reference was not present before Collector under S. 12(2), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even then maximum period of limitation was six months from the date of award. Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss. 30 & 11---Reference for decision of disputes as regards apportionment of compensation---Collector, alone in his discretion can make reference for decision of dispute to Court as regards apportionment of compensation determined under S. 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the person to whom same or any part thereof, was payable---Provision of S. 30 of the Act does not confer any right on any party to get reference made thereunder as a matter of…