Find a Lawyer

MIAN SARFRAZ GUL versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION

Sections 4, 11, 18, 23, 53 and 54 Determination of Acquisition Compensation The court referenced the acquisition of the acquired property in the form of houses, shops and mosque collectors, the acquisition of the land announced two awards, one Not satisfied with the appellant / landowners concerned with the land and other land, the awards filed objections which were sent to the referee court for disposal and the referee court stated that those objections were made before the referee court's decision. In the appeal before the decisions were suspended. The referee court was full of defects; the referee court did not draw the verdict as well. In addition to the absence of injunctions, several other defects were appearing in the decisions of the referee court. One of the major drawbacks of the referee court's decisions was that the report of the local commissioner appointed by the referee court was rejected by the court itself. The local commissioner was not a construction expert and did not have a qualified engineer, and the court believed in the assessment made by the engineer of the department, who was acquiring the land, which, in the aforesaid decisions, was made by the referee court. There was a violation of the rules. Pricing by the acquisition staff of the department was not binding on the court, whereas the price of the spray structure specified by the local commissioner was representative of the force department, accompanied by the sub divisional officer, the local commissioner, who assisted in the localization of the token. The commissioner's report was signed. The accuracy of the measure was referenced by the impression that the proxy obtained by him was irrevocable and that the cost could be obtained by the Land Acquisition Collector, divorce advocates from Pirpai lawyer