| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5009 = 1966 SLD 5009 = 1966 PLD 111 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 1797 of 1964, decided on 24th June 1965.
Presented By: Mushtaq Hussain and Muhammad Akram, JJ
S. Nazir-ud-Din A.-G., Sh. Ata Ullah Sajjad, Addl. A.-G., S. M. Bashir, A. A.-G. and Ihsan-ul-Haq for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1797 of 1964, decided on 24th June 1965.
Presented By: Mushtaq Hussain and Muhammad Akram, JJ
S. Nazir-ud-Din A.-G., Sh. Ata Ullah Sajjad, Addl. A.-G., S. M. Bashir, A. A.-G. and Ihsan-ul-Haq for
Respondents.
(1) LT.-COL. MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN, (2) ASIF ALI KHAN, (3) AZHAR ALI KHAN, AND (4) Malik GHULAM JILANI-Petitioners
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS Respondents
Law: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)
Section: 3(a),4,5,17,22
Law: Government Grants Act, 1895
Section:
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss. 3(a), 4, 5. & 17 Word "land"-Definition neither exhaustive nor restrictive, but extensive-Word "includes" used in interpretation clause does not restrict Government's power to acquire totality of interest in land-Government, being itself owner of land, can acquire other interests held by private persons. The definition of land given in section 3 of the Land Acquisi tion Act is neither exhaustive nor restrictive but is extensive and besides the meaning with which it had been clothed in that section the word is capable of receiving its ordinary, popular and natural sense in which it is understood in the English language. The word "include" used in the interpretation clause does not restrict the power of the Government to acquire the totality of interest in land and it is open to the Government, in a given case where it is itself the owner of the land, to acquire such other interests in it as are held by private persons and which clog the rights of the Government to put the land to a particular public purpose. The Government of Bombay v. Esufali Salebhai I L R 34 Bom. 618; Mangaldas Girdhardas Parekh v. The Assistant Collec tor of Prantij Prant, Ahmadabad I L R 45 Bom. 277; Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji A I R 1955 S C 298; Hari Chand and others v. Secretary of State A I R 1.939 P C 235; Halsbury's Laws of England, (Third Edition), Vol. 10, page 113 and Crips on Compulsory Acquisition of Land, (Eleventh Edition), Para. 4004, p. 674 ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes-Word "means" or "includes" used in interpretation clause of statute-Purpose-Meaning of particular words-Not to be found so much it: strict etymological propriety of language, as in subject or occasion on which used and object intended to be attained. One of the two words "means" or "includes" is generally employed to define the scope of a. word in the interpretation clause of a statute. The former is used to restrict the scope of the word to the four corners of what is stated in the clause and to deprive it of any other meaning that it may have in…