Ch. AHMED NAWAZ vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Land Acquisition
This civil appeal arises from an order of the High Court which set aside an Executing Court's order allowing compound interest to the appellant-landowner under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant's land was acquired, and while the Referee Judge enhanced compensation, compound interest was not granted in the decision, nor did the appellant challenge that omission through appeal or review, allowing the decree to attain finality. Subsequently, the appellant sought compound interest under the guise of recalculating the decretal amount, which the Executing Court erroneously granted. The core legal question was whether an Executing Court can award a relief or benefit—such as compound interest—not granted by the original decree under the garb of recalculation. The Supreme Court held that an executing court cannot go behind or modify a final decree, nor can it grant a relief that was never awarded under the decree. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that calculation of decretal amounts cannot be used to introduce new substantive reliefs not forming part of the original adjudication.
- Can an Executing Court grant a relief to a decree-holder that was never awarded under the original decree?
- Whether an executing court can go behind the final decree or modify its terms during execution proceedings?
- Does the process of recalculating a decretal amount permit the introduction of new items not granted by the judgment and decree?
- Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
ORDER
1. ' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The appellant's land had been acquired, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAC, he filed reference and the Referee Judge enhanced the compensation by determining the market value, but in such decision, the compound interest in terms of section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not allowed. Subsequently the appellant sought the compound interest in the A garb of recalculation of the amount due to him which request was so allowed by the Executing Court. However on appeal, the learned High Court set aside the order of the Executing Court and dismissed the application of the appellant.
2. We have heard the appellant in person and find that no decree ever was passed in his favour by the Referee Judge in terms of section 34 granting him compound interest and this decision was not challenged by the appellant either in review or appeal, therefore such decree attained finality.
2. Obviously the Executing Court in the facts and circumstances could not modify the decree and go beyond it. The judgment reported as Government of Sindh and 2 others v. Syed Shakir Ali Jafri and 6 others (1996 SCM R 1361) wherein it was held that "Accordingly the executing Court was directed to proceed with the execution application and to recalculate the decretal amount "in terms of the above modification". In this Court's judgment dated 3-11-1992, it was held that "there is a marked distinction between drawing of a decree and calculation of the amount in terms of the decree.
3. The Court's duty is to draw a decree in terms of the judgment, whereas it is for the decree-holder to calculate the amount in terms of such a decree and it is for the judgment-debtor to point out calculation mistake, if any, but the judgment-debtor cannot challenge the merits of the decretal items while challenging the calculation of the decretal amount," is distinguishable on its own facts.
4. It was never held in the judgment (supra) that while executing the decree and ascertaining the exact amount payable there under in the process of calculation, the Executing Court could grant a relief to the decree-holder which was never awarded to him under the decree. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 9 cases
- Habib Ullah vs Aman Ullah Khan 2025 PHC 214
- Bashir Ahmad vs Addl. District Judge, Hafizabad & others 2023 SCP 344, 2024 PLD Supreme Court 67, 2024 PLJ SC 342
- Saidf-ur-Rehman vs Ijaz and another 2023 SCP 300, 2023 SCMR 2133
- IDBP vs M/s Kaghan Ghee Mills etc 2022 PHC 2
- Industrial Development Bank Limited through Officer Incharge vs Messrs 2022 CLD 522
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman vs Jan 2021 PLD Sindh 241
- Sheikh Adeel Imtiaz vs Faysal Bank Limited & Others 2019 SHC 459
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala, through its 2016 C.L.R. 922, 2016 LHC 1540, K.L.R. 2016 Revenue Cases 39
- Muhammad Amin vs Additional District Judge, Khairpur Tamewali and 2 2020 LHC 2814