| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 884 1997 SLD 884 1997 CLC 1971 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.356 of 1978, decision dated: 20-06-1997
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J
Usman Ghani Rashid for Plaintiffs. Dastgir Ghazi for Defendants
Suit No.356 of 1978, decision dated: 20-06-1997
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J
Usman Ghani Rashid for Plaintiffs. Dastgir Ghazi for Defendants
NOORUDDIN and others--Plaintiffs
VS
PAKISTAN and others----Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--------S. 52---Entries in record of rights---Evidentiary value---Entries in record of rights would be strong piece of evidence in support of person's title to immovable property and ought to be relied upon in absence of satisfactory evidence in rebuttal produced by opposite-party---Where plaintiffs had produced sufficient documents in support of their ownership of property in question, which had not been rebutted by defendants, plaintiff's ownership was proved in circumstances. Barkat Bibi v. West Pakistan Government 1984 CLC 2314 ref. (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss. 4, 5-A, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 & 16---Acquisition of land---Procedure detailed. (c) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss. 4, 5-A & 6---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 142, 144 & S.23--Plaintiff's dispossession from land in question---Period of dispossession--Articles 142 & 144, Limitation Act, 1908---Applicability---Two notifications one under S.4 and the other under S.6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, having been simultaneously issued, and published in Gazette on same date, declaration purported to be made under S.6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was ultra vires the power of Authority and would have no legal effect---Land in question, thus, was not acquired in accordance with law and possession of Authority over the same was unauthorised---Defendants having come into possession of property in question before 1966, though without proper authority their possession and plaintiff's discontinuance of possession was more than 12 years old---Provision of Art. 142, Limitation Act, 1908, however, could not apply for basic precondition for its application i.e., dispossession of plaintiff could not be assumed to have taken place---Defendant having never asserted hostile title to land in question, provision of Art. 144, Limitation Act, 1908 could not be made applicable to their case---Possession of defendants would not appear to be better than that of trespasser and such trespass would amount to continuing wrong in terms of S.23, Limitation Act, 1908---Negotiation for payment of compensation were being carried out till June,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492