Article 18 (3) [As amending the Land Acquisition (Balochistan Amendment) Ordinance (V of 2000), Section 2] Obtaining appeal through acquisition of Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O XX, R 5 Enhanced the option of, the player hearing the compensation filed by the landlord on the reference filed by the landlord was that the decision passed by the trial court was in violation of the provisions of OX, Rule 5. , CPC landlords dispute that the appeal could not be sustained as it could only be. Was filed by the provincial government and not by the acquisition authority. In view of the amendment of the justification law, the authority for which the land was to be acquired had the right to appeal, thus ruling on the reference, the authority was appealed through the acquisition of the trial court with the right and competence. ? No case was set up nor any evidence was sought so that the contents of the references could be ascertained or the objections filed by the authority sought. The possibility of action under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as far as the procedure for handling the case and the decision of reference was concerned, by not adopting due process, namely, the formation of cases and the recording of evidence, the trial court erred. And the illegal proceedings under which the trial court ruled. OX is not in accordance with the R 5 CPC clause and the same matter was set aside by the trial court's High Court, pending the trial court's decision, after the recording of the case was remanded for a new decision. An appeal was allowed in the case of evidence and the parties hearing
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
