Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1978, decided on 9th March 1980.
(On appeal from judgment and order of Lahore High Court dated 27-6-72 in Writ Petition No. 1111 of 1965).
--- Ss. 7, 10 & 2-1 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Arts. 185 & 199- Colony lease-Cancellation and resumption of land--Counsel for appel lant relying upon terms of lease agreement contending respondent hav ing no right to claim any compensation--Respondent's counsel not contending appeal and stating to be not in support of impugned order- Appeal accepted in circumstances and impugned order set aside.
Mian Nusrat, Ullah Senior Advocate and Sh. ljaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.
Muhammad Anwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing,: 9th March 1980.
.-This appeal through special leave is directed against the judgment dated 27-6-72 of the Lahore High Court, where by while disposing of a writ petition filed by the respondent, the Collector, Lyallpur (Faisalabad), one of the appellants was directed to pay compen3a tion for improvement to the respondent No. 1, a Government tenant on resumption of his lease.
The respondent had challenged the orders of cancellation and resumption through a writ petition wherein he bad prayed that the said orders be declared as without lawful authority with consequential relief for direction to the Collector to the effect that the proprietary rights in the land in question be granted to him. The appellants had resisted the writ petition and had filed written statement controverting the respondent's pleased.
It is mentioned in the impugned order that on the day of hearing the counsel for the respondent did not render any assistance to the Court. However, the learned counsel for one of the present appellants assisted the Court and while giving the facts admitted that the respondent had sunk a well in the land in dispute and that no compensation had been paid to him. On this the learned Judge of the High Court observed that even if there was the breach of any condition, the Member, Board of Revenue should not have imposed the maximum penalty and that in any case the respondent was "entitled to the compensation for sinking of the well and the improvements made on land by him". Leave was granted to examine whether in view of condition No. 4(d) of the terms of the lease, the respondent was entitled to any compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the terms of leas agreement particularly clause 4(d) thereof to contend that the respondent could not claim any compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent has no contested the appeal and has stated that he would not support the impugne order. That being the case, particularly when the respondent had not even sought the relief granted to him by the High Court, we accept this appeal an set aside the impugned order. As the respondent has not contested the appellant a therefore, he is not being burdened with costs.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer