Case Details

Citation(s)
1964 SLG 3712 = 1964 SLD 3712 = 1964 PLD 21
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1963, decided on 18th February 1964.
Presented By: Abdul Hamid Khan, C. J. and Muhammad Sharif, J
M. Y. Saraf for Appellant. Malik Mohammad Akram with Larasap Khan, Government Advocate (M. D.) for
Respondent.  

Qazi NAZIR AHMAD--Appellant

VERSUS

AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT--Respondent

Law: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)

Section: 24

(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) [as amended],   Ss. 24--seventhly, 4 (1) do 18-Word "sanction" in clause seventhly of S.24-Implies previous permission and not post-facto sanction (ratification)-Date of publication of notification under S. 4(1) ---Relevant date for determining market value of land-Person, having knowledge of notice under S 4 (1), erecting fresh structure on land and obtaining sanction of collector after completion of building Not entitled to claim compensation at enhanced rate-Principle analogous to that in English Law-Only remedy lies in seeking reference under S. 18 and not by way of separate suit.   The word "sanction" used in clause seventhly of section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, means previous permission and not post facto sanction (ratification). The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is that the power of the owner of the land to be acquired to deal with it comes to an end after the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act and it is the market value of such land on the date of the publication of the notifi cation under section 4 that is the measure of compensation to be awarded to the owner if, therefore, with knowledge of the acquisition proceeding and the notification thereof a person invests capital on the land to be acquired, he does so at his own risk and he is not entitled to an enhanced compensation on account of improvement so effected even if subsequently sanction of the Collector is obtained after the completion of work. The only remedy open to such person is to seek reference under section 18 of the Act but he cannot litigate the matter by a separate suit in a civil Court.   P L D 1950 Lah. 86 held not relevant. P L D 1960 Lah. 1199; A I R 1939 Lah. 1; A I R 1917 P C 142; A I R 1945 F C 67; P L D 1960 Dacca 438; (1896) Q B D 68; P L D 1961 Dacca 573; Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edition, p. 369: 51 I C 501; (1871) 12 E Q 389, 391; (1878) W N 219; (1908) 2 K B 126 C A; Law of Land Acquisition and Compensation by Sanjiwa Row 3rd Edition p. 383 and P L D 1956 Pesh. 110 ref. (b) Interpretation of Statues-   True meaning of passage in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register