MADAD KHAN Versus Haji HAKIM GUL
This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that remanded a suit for specific performance back to the trial court, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their plaint to seek compensation following the compulsory acquisition of the subject land. The core legal question was whether the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act frustrates an agreement of sale, thereby rendering a suit for specific performance unmaintainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquisition of land does not frustrate an agreement of sale. The Court affirmed that even if the land is acquired, a decree for specific performance remains viable because the vendee effectively steps into the shoes of the vendor to receive the compensation awarded for the acquisition. Consequently, the High Court's decision to allow the amendment of the plaint to claim such compensation was upheld as legally sound. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the matter by a specified date.
- Does the compulsory acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act frustrate an agreement of sale?
- Can a vendee in a specific performance suit claim compensation awarded for land acquisition if the property is acquired during the pendency of the suit?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to amend a plaint in a specific performance suit to seek consequential relief regarding compensation after the subject land is acquired?
- Land Acquisition Act 1894
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J .---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-9-1997 of the Peshawar High Court whereby on acceptance of appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 13-1-1993 of dismissal of their suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, the case has been remanded with permission to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to claim consequential relief of recovery of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act against the land in question after its acquisition.
2. The respondents filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21-7-1990. During the pendency of the suit, the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The trial Court upheld the objection raised on behalf of the defendants that in such situation, the agreement of sale stood frustrated as the vendor was no longer vested with the ownership rights in the property and the suit dismissed through judgment dated 13-1-1993 against which appeal filed by the respondents has been accepted by the Peshawar High Court and the case remanded as noted above.
3. On the last date of hearing i.e. 30-10-2003, the case was adjourned for today on the request of Mr. Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellants. An application was filed by Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record on 10-11-2003 for adjournment of the case on the ground that Mr. Abdul Samad; Advocate Supreme Court, was indisposed. Mr. Abdul Samad, Advocate Supreme Court appeared before this Court yesterday in a case.
4. We are not inclined to adjourn the case and asked Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record to address arguments in support of this appeal. He expressed his inability to do so, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after examining the record and hearing learned counsel for the respondents. .
5. It has been consistently held by the superior Courts in the cases of Joydeb Agarwala v. Baitulmal Karkhana Ltd. PLD 1965 SC 37; Pirzada Amir Hassan and others v. Mrs. Shamim Shah Nawaz and others 1984 CLC 3080 and Haji Hakeem Gul and others v. Madad Khan and others 1998 MLD 1260 that acquisition of land does not in any manner frustrate the agreement of sale, for if a decree is granted for specific performance of the same, the vendee would step into the shoes of the vendor for the purpose of receipt of compensation awarded qua the acquisition.
6. In view of this, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this appeal has no merits which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. Keeping in view that the case is fairly old one, the trial Court is hereby directed to decide the same expeditiously and dispose of the same before 31-7-2004.
M.H./M-943/S Appeal dismissed.