Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2641 of 1976, decided on 24th May, 1980.

Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Matters relating to details based on evidence, held, pertain to appreciation of evidence and cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction.

S. 8 and Notification No. 6416‑71/3316‑LRIII, Gazetted on 7‑1‑1972 read with Punjab Pre‑emption (Removal of Doubts) Ordinance (XI of 1972), S. 2‑Chashma Barrage Project‑Pre‑emption, right of Immunity‑Neither Ordinance nor notification having defined word displaced' ordinary dictionary meaning to be applied‑Immunity from exercise of right of pre‑emption, as such, held, created only in respect of persons put out or dislodged from usual or proper place by construction of Chashma Barrage irrespective of whether their land acquired or not for said project.

‑‑ S. 2 (a)‑Displaced person‑Acquisition of land, though a piece of evidence for determining whether a person displaced or not yet by itself entirely insufficient to give status of displaced person.

‑ S. 2 (a)‑Displaced person‑Respondents never living in. village acquired for Barrage but only purchasing some marlas of land in village abadi many years after notification for its acquisition issued and merely six months before diversion of water to village‑Respondents, prima facie, held, in substance purchased not land but right to receive compensation.

‑‑ Art. 199 (1) and Punjab Pre‑emption (Removal of Doubts) Ordi nance (XI of 1972), S. 2‑Alternate adequate remedy‑Contention that in view of prohibition created by S. 2 respondents could not take advantage of notification in civil suit unless independent of declaration made by Commissioner in certificate respondents also proved to have fulfilled qualifications laid down in such section and as such writ peti tion raising same issue as fell to be decided by civil Court an exercise in futility‑Held: Construction placed on provisions of S. 2 though correct yet it does not follow that petitioner could not be allowed to question validity of certificate issued by Commissioner without taking into consideration all relevant facts just because of status of respondents again coming up for consideration before civil Court.

Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan for Appellant.

Altaf Muhammad Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Muhammad Hanif Khan Niazi and Mian Sher Alam for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.

Dates of hearing : 28th April and 12th May, 1980.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.