SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (RE-SETTLEMENT) MANGLA DAM versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Sections 4, 11, 8, 50 (2) and 54 Land Acquisition Compensation Award The reference to the court against the award filed by the landowner was partially accepted by the referee court authority (WAPDA) for which the land was acquired. Was done Reference, a notice was issued to him, but at the next hearing, no one was present on his behalf and no further proceedings were ordered, matters were also set up in the absence of Wapda and his There was no hearing, the reference was terminated and the verdict was written without the receipt of a written statement and the hearing, which was an integral part of any institution in whose favor this land was acquired, could prosecute or Fully capable of defending and was able to file a reference or appeal, Wapda believes the defense is right. Section 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the referee judge neither gave Wapda a chance to be heard nor decided the previous action against him and set aside the decree passed by the referee court. had gone. E was remanded in referee court, according to which he must decide according to law
