| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 893 1997 SLD 893 1997 SCMR 1692 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 869 to 916 of 1993 and Civil Appeals Nos.22 to 72 of 1994, decision dated: 25-06-1997
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI AND MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, JJ
Civil Appeals Nos. 869 to 916 of 1993 and Civil Appeals Nos.22 to 72 of 1994, decision dated: 25-06-1997
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI AND MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, JJ
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector Bahawalpur, District, Bahawalpur and othersvsCol. ABDUL MAJEED and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--Ss. 4, 11 & 23---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R.33--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Power of Court---Land acquisition---Determination of compensation---Leave to appeal was granted to consider question as to whether High Court was justified in awarding the compensation in respect of the entire land covered by the two notifications on the basis of the market value obtaining on the date of second notification, without taking into consideration the market rate obtaining at the time of first notification; whether High Court was justified to enhance the amount of compensation to the extent it had done in the case and whether High Court was justified in extending the benefit of its to the owners who had not filed any appeal against the of Court below. (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- -----Ss. 4, 11 & 23---Acquisition of land---Payment of compensation--Determination of market value---Two notifications under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for two lands in same area for the same purpose--Effect---Notification under S.4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was originally issued proposing to acquire 32 acres and 16 Marlas of land for a medical college---Subsequently another notification under S.4 of the Act proposing to acquire 12 acres, 1 Kanal and 10 Marlas of land for the same college was also issued---Subsequent notification, held, was not a corrigendum of . the first notification but was an independent notification under S.4 of the Act and was not in supersession of the first notification---Market value of the land proposed to be acquired by subsequent notification was to be determined in accordance with the market rates, prevailing to the date of said notification. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- -----Procedural law---All procedural laws are subservient to the cause of justice anti therefore, such laws neither limit nor control the power of the Court to pass an order or decree which is necessary to do full justice in the facts and circumstances of the case---Interpretation of procedural law, in a manner, it tends to obstruct the course of justice has to be avoided as far as possible.…
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