TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, GHAZI BAROTHA HYDRO POWER PROJECT, GHAZI
Section 18, 30 and 53 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VI, R 17 Referring to the removal of a request for modification of reference, the petitioners demanded an amendment to their objections, as to the property they acquired. Just connected. Referrals should be provided with the opportunity to present evidence to support your claim. The right to present evidence in support of them cannot be denied. Referrals tried to make amendments soon after they filed their objections to the collector and the acquisition was not delayed for a long time, so it can be safely stated that they were not intended. Amendments were sought to misuse the law or to protect their rights and interests, neither was it expressly prohibited by any provision of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, Has impacted the provision of public treasury for modification of government policy or government code of conduct. 1908 shall apply as was the case under section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, OVI, R 17, serving the spirit, justice and proceeding behind the amending clauses and under which the parties' valuable Protecting rights should never take place. The altar, where justice and rights of the parties were to be sacrificed, had, in fact, avoided the technicalities, if not pushed aside for adwa. Decision-making and order passed by the referee court under which the request for amendment was dismissed was set aside, instructing the referee court to amend the reference to the objectors.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
