CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE ISLAMABAD versus QARI FALAKSHER
Sections 4, 9, 11, 17A, 18, 23 and 54 Determination of Property Acquisition Compensation Reimbursement with respect to the Referee Court Six shops were acquired in the defendant's possession for which Market Value 1, Rs. 06,096 was fixed / 35 The referee court raised the money from Rs. 1,06,096 / 35 to Rs. 6,74,600 / 20, before the acquisition authority filed the objection petition, before the referee court. An appeal was filed against the verdict, the defendant owner transferred the application to the district partner. The Coordination Officer for the evaluation of the received shop compensation, whose request was sent to the Department of Building. And according to the schedule, the sub-engineer estimated the cost of the shop structure as Rs 6,74,600 / 20 was paid by the respondents as compensation for the shops received in their objection request and the referee said That the same objection was challenged on the objection of the Applicant / Authority of the amount and that the District Coordination Officer could not send the application to the Building Department with the direction of appraisal of the suit property, the field instruction included in the plan also applied for the land. Not provided for. The Appellant Authority in its written statement determined the market value of the property acquired for the purposes of the appellant authority in the project, in the Acquisition Act, 1894, nor was there any clear, contradictory question about the structure cost of the suit shops. , Nor was there any claim, in the absence of which the cost of construction was claimed by the respondent / owner, which is estimated by the sub-engineer as scheduled, considered as a cost of a referee by the structure. Will be legal under the circumstances
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
