DEFENCE DEPARTMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence-
This matter arises from a petition filed against the judgment dated 20th October 2005 passed by the Lahore High Court in R.F.A. No. 187 of 2000. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a beneficiary of acquired land is competent to file a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to challenge the compensation awarded to the deprived landowners. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by a beneficiary is not competent, reaffirming the settled principle established in prior Full Bench jurisprudence that beneficiaries have no right to challenge such compensation.
- Is a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 maintainable by a beneficiary of acquired land?
- Do beneficiaries of acquired land have the right to challenge the compensation awarded to deprived landowners?
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act 1894
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 20th October, 2005 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No,187 of 2000.
2. Learned Deputy Attorney-General contended that the Referee Court dismissed the reference without any legal justification. When his attention has been drawn towards the case of Pakistan v.
Abdul Hayee Khan PLD 1995 SC 418, wherein it has been held that appellants being beneficiaries of the land acquired, had no right to challenge the compensation given to the deprived owners of the land by the competent Court, he stated that the view so taken by the Court is required to be revisited. We are not inclined to agree with the contention of learned Deputy Attorney-General for the reason that Full Bench of this Court on having taken into consideration all attending circumstances of the case and the law on the subject, had formed the opinion that a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Referee Court A by a beneficiary, is not competent, therefore, no case for revisiting the earlier view taken by a Full Bench of this Court in reported judgment, is made out.
' Thus, for the foregoing reason, petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 4 cases
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and 6 others vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 6 others 2010 PLD Supreme Court 745
- BP PAKISTAN EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INC. through its Attorney vs SHER ALI KHAWAJA and another 2008 PLJ SC 1077
- Land Acquisition Collector And 6 Other vs Muhammad Nawaz And 6 Other K.L.R. 2010 Supreme Court 379
- WAPDA through S.E. Acquiring Cell CRBC Project WAPDA, D.I. Khan and others vs SYED ALI and others 2010 PLJ SC 1051