PRVINCE -OF PUNJAB Versus ABDUL AZIZ
This matter concerns two appeals filed by the Province of Punjab against a High Court judgment regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal questions were whether the appeals were maintainable without obtaining leave to appeal under the 1962 Constitution and whether the significant delay in filing applications for leave to appeal could be condoned. The Supreme Court held that the appeals were incompetent as the Provincial Government failed to obtain the requisite leave to appeal under Article 58(2) of the 1962 Constitution. Furthermore, the Court refused to condone the delay in filing the leave applications, noting that the delay was due to manifest laches by government law officers and that valuable rights had accrued to the respondents in the interim. On the merits, the Court observed that the compensation awarded was equitable, given that the land's current market value far exceeded the compensation provided. The key principle laid down is that the Court will not condone significant delays in filing leave applications where such delay results from administrative negligence and prejudices the accrued rights of the opposing party.
- Is an appeal filed without obtaining the requisite leave to appeal under the 1962 Constitution competent?
- Can the Supreme Court condone a delay in filing an application for leave to appeal where the delay is caused by the negligence of government law officers?
- Does the Court have discretion to refuse condonation of delay when valuable rights have accrued to the respondents?
- Section 109, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 110, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XLV Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Article 58(2), Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Section 4, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act 1894
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.‑‑ These two appeals were filed by the Province of Punjab on 14th and 16th December, 1963, ors the basis of certificates of fitness granted by the High Court under sections 109 and 110 read with Order XLV, rule 3, C. P. C. Fourteen other appeals arising from the same order of the High Court, had been filed earlier on the basis of similar certificates of fitness. It was, accordingly, directed that all these appeals be heard together. It so happened that these two appeals were not placed before the Court when the other 14 appeals were heard. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondents therein that the appeals were not properly constituted as leave to appeal had not been obtained by the Provincial Government under Article 58(2) o the 1962 Constitution which had come into force before the impugned judgment of the High Court was delivered on 15‑7‑1966. The objection prevailed and the appeals were dismissed as incompetent.
2. An oral prayer, made by the appellants counsel in these appeals to grant leave to appeal, was rejected with the observation that the objection to the competence of the appeals was raised in the Concise Statement filed by the respondents in May: 1972, but no steps were taken to apply for leave to appeal till 26th November, 1974, when the appeals came up for hearing.
3. In the present two appeals, applications for leave to appeal were moved on 6th May, 1975, that is to say nearly 6 months after the dismissal of the connected 14 appeals. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General, who appears for the Province, has not given any explanation for this delay, valuable rights having accrued to the respondents in the meantime, we do not consider it proper to deprive them of those rights by condoning the delay which is due to manifest laches on the part of the Law Officers of the Government.
4. On merits too, the justice of the case is against the Provincial Government. A vast tract of land situated within the municipal limits of Lahore was acquired by the Provincial Government for construction of residential banglows and quarters for its employees. Possession of the land was taken a year before notification, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. The Collector classified the land as agricultural and assessed compensation for it at Rs. 1,700 per kanal. The Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, on a reference under section 18 of the C Land Acquisition Act, raised the price to Rs. 3,858 per kanal and the High Court has, on appeal, maintained that order.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General did not deny that the land acquired by the Provincial Government is now worth Rs. 1,00,000 per kanal. It could not, therefore, be said that the respondents have been paid compensation at a higher rate than the market price prevailing at the time when they were dispossessed of the land.
6. In the result, the petitions for special leave to appeal are rejected as barred by time while Civil Appeals Nos. 74 and 78 of 1968 are dismissed as incompetent in law.
7. As respondents have not put in appearance, there is no order as to costs.
8. Petition and appeals dismissed,