GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Assistant Commissioner, Quetta vs Haji MUHAMMAD AKBAR KANSI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of Balochistan against a judgment of the Balochistan High Court dismissing a civil revision against an executing court's order. The core legal question concerned whether landowners were entitled to additional compensation under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Balochistan Amendment) Act XIII of 1985, in addition to compulsory acquisition charges. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 28-A are mandatory and provide for additional compensation from the date of the notification under section 4 up to the date of payment. The Court further affirmed that the executing court could neither go behind the decree nor omit to execute anything already decreed pursuant to the High Court's earlier judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
- Are the provisions of section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 mandatory in nature?
- Can an executing court go behind the decree or omit to execute anything already decreed?
- Are landowners entitled to additional compensation from the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 up to the date of payment?
- Section 28-A, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Land Acquisition (Balochistan Amendment) Act XIII of 1985
- Section 4, Land Acquisition Act 1894
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Government of Balochistan through Assistant Commissioner, Quetta seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-6-1999 of a learned Single Judge in Chambers of Balochistan High Court, dismissing Civil Revision No,11 of 1999 filed by the present petitioner assailing the order dated 14-12-1998 passed by Additional District Judge I, Quetta in execution proceedings.
2. It is a land acquisition case where the executing Court vide order dated 14-12-1998 held that the owners of the land were entitled to additional compensation of 15%-in accordance with section 28- A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Land Acquisition (Balochistan Amendment) Act XIII of 1985. This always is in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges.
3. This Court in PLD 1992 SC 472 has categorically held that the provisions of section 28-A are mandatory in nature and do provide for additional compensation from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act up to the date of payment of compensation.
4. In the circumstances, the executing Court was right in coming to the aforesaid conclusion because it was pursuant to a Division Bench judgment dated 27-5-1998 of the High Court of Balochistan in this very case which came up before the High Court in Regular First Appeal No,42 of 1997.'Obviously the executing Court could neither go behind the decree nor omit to execute anything already decreed.
5. There being no force at all in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed.