QADIR BAKHSH Alias Abdul Qadir vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's civil revision regarding compensation for acquired land. The petitioner's land was acquired by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) under the Garden Town Scheme. Initially, in 1977, the petitioner was granted plots in lieu of his land, with a directive that compensation for the superstructure be determined based on an estimate from the Engineering Department. However, in 1979, the Director-General of the LDA modified this order, directing that compensation be paid according to the award determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner challenged this modification through a civil suit, which was dismissed, as were subsequent appeals and revisions. The Supreme Court examined the contention that the Director-General lacked the authority to modify the 1977 compensation determination. Finding that the High Court had correctly addressed the legal and factual aspects of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order warranted no interference and refused to grant leave to appeal.
- Can a Director-General of a development authority modify a previously issued order regarding the method of determining compensation for acquired land?
- Does the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision regarding land compensation warrant Supreme Court interference if the factual position is correctly assessed?
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J: --This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 21st May, 1986 whereby civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by L.DA. Under Garden Town Scheme and in 1977 the petitioner was given plots in lieu of the land taken from him alongwith the direction that he be given compensation for superstructure on the basis of the estimate prepared by the Engineering Department. Plots were given in lieu of-the land to the petitioner but as regards compensation, the Director-General L.D.A. Modified his order in 1979 to the effect that the petitioner be paid compensation in accordance with the award given by Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner challenged the modification of the order respecting compensation by filing a civil suit which was dismissed. Subsequently his appeal and revision were also dismissed. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Director-General passed regarding the method of determining compensation in 1977 could not be modified by him in 1979. Learned Judge of the High Court has attended to this aspect of the matter correctly. So far as the factual positron is concerned the impugned order calls for no interference. Leave is accordingly refused. 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.