| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1986 2008 SLD 1986 2008 PLD 577 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.689 of 2000, decide don 8th April, 2008., (On appeal from the judgment dated 12-2-1998 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P.No.810 of 1995).
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.689 of 2000, decide don 8th April, 2008., (On appeal from the judgment dated 12-2-1998 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P.No.810 of 1995).
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mian MUHAMMAD SABIR
VS
Malik MUHAMMAD SADIQ through Legal Heirs and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)------Ss. 18 & 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Acquisition of land---Compensation---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider as to whether the Member, Board of Revenue, in revision was legally justified in cancelling the mutation in favour of the petitioner after it was found by the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner that the land was acquired from the petitioner and compensation was paid to him, moreover in the grounds of appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue it was revealed that it was not the case of the respondent that the land being Shamlat, the proprietary body of the village and not the petitioner alone was entitled to compensation---Petition for leave to appeal being time-barred, Supreme Court observed that point of limitation would be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 12(2)(5)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185---Appeal to Supreme Court---Limitation---Exclusion of time---`Time requisite'---Meaning---Condonation of delay---Time requisite for obtaining copy of order within the contemplation of S.12 of the Limitation Act, 1908 means only the interval between the date of application for supply of copy and the date when it is ready for delivery---Time between the date on which the copy was ready for delivery, and the date on which the applicant chooses to take delivery thereof, is not a portion of time `requisite' for obtaining copy---Appellant, in the present case, had failed to produce the chit/receipt issued by the copying agency showing the date for preparation of certified copy, inasmuch as, no such date had been indicated in the application for condonation of delay---Had the appellant produced the said chit and the copy was not ready on the date indicated in the chit, appellant could have taken shelter under S.12(5), Limitation Act, 1908---Principles---Appellant having not been able to sufficiently explain the inordinate delay of 8 months and 9 days within the parameters of law, appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court and leave granting order was rescinded. West Pakistan…
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