Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 747 and 748 of 1979, decided on 14th March, 1986.
(From the judgment dated 5‑6‑1979 of the Lahore, High Court, Lahore, passed in I.C.As. Nos. 46 and 47 of 1979 respectively).
(a) Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act (VIII of 1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss. 7, 8 & 11‑‑Petitioner's land acquired and in lieu of compensation he was offered a plot of seven Marlas‑‑Petitioner wanting a plot of ten Marlas instead on basis of 50 of his total holding according to which he became entitled to 9 Marlas‑‑Demand of petitioner denied by authority and his writ petition and Intra‑Court Appeal failed‑‑High Court in Intra‑Court Appeal, held, that since compensation in form of plot was to be relatable to compensation in cash for land acquired, plot could exceed compensation only when there was no plot equal in value to compensation‑‑Right of affected land‑owner to obtain a site would supervene over site being comparable in price to compensation payable, but if claim was to a larger site than cash value then affected land owner could be kept within .bounds of compensation‑‑Such exercise enabled petitioner/ appellant to obtain a seven Marlas plot though in terms of cash their entitlement might be lesser than that‑‑Petitioner on basis of such an entitlement could not claim a larger plot than value of compensation payable to him for land‑‑Reasoning of High Court, in circumstances of case being unexceptionable, interference declined by Supreme Court.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Contention involving question of fact not raised before High Court‑‑Effect‑‑Contention, held, could not be entertained for first time before Supreme Court.
Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court with Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent (in both Civil Petitions).
Date of hearing: 15th March, 1986.
.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two identical petitions from judgment dated 5‑6‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners Intra‑Court Appeals against the decision of a learned Single Judge, were dismissed.
2. Petitioner's land has been affected by acquisition for Faisal Town Scheme under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act (No. VIII of 1973). The holding was 18 Marlas. In lieu of the compensation they have been offered in the same Scheme a plot measuring 7 Marlas. They instead wanted a 10 Marlas plot as according to the formula relied upon by them, they were entitled to 9 Marlas 50% of the total holding. And as there was no 9 Marlas plot, therefore, they instead asked for 10 Marlas plot which was the maximum that could be allowed under the relevant Scheme. This demand having been denied to them, they sought remedy in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. They then filed two separate Intra‑Court Appeals. The same having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has relied on proviso to section 11 (i) to contend that the petitioners are entitled to make choice between compensation of their land of different types including that in the form of return of developed plot of land, and they having made the choice, the authorities concerned acted without lawful authority in refusing the demand.
4. Same argument was raised before the I . C . A . Bench which disposed of the same as follows:‑
"So far as the first line of attack is concerned a reference to section 7 and section 8 of the Housing Act which precedes section 11, makes it clear that the computation of the compensation has to be in cash and in no other form. After it has been so quantified, the comparable unit of the area is to be given if the opinion is exercised in the manner provided under the law. It follows, therefore, that the compensation in the form of plot has to be relatable to the compensation in cash for the land acquired. The plot can exceed the compensation only when there is no plot equal in value to the compensation. The right of the affected land‑owner to obtain a site will supervene over the site being comparable in price to the compensation payable. But if the claim is to a larger site than cash value then the affected land‑owner can be kept within the bounds of the compensation. It is this exercise which enables the appellants to obtain a 7 Marlas plot though in terms of cash their entitlement may be lesser than that. However, on the basis of such an entitlement they cannot claim a larger plot than the value of compensation payable to them for land."
5. The reasoning of the High Court, in the circumstances of the case, is unexceptionable and no justification has been made out for interference on that score.
6. Learned counsel then raised another two‑fold contention based on section 11, namely, that even if the petitioners were entitled to only a 7 Marlas plot the remaining two Marlas should have been compensated either in the form of another plot of 2 Marlas or in the form of the value for developed land as the remaining 2 Marlas entitlement had to be compensated in cash on that basis.
7. This contention was not raised before the High Court. It involves question of fact also. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to entertain it for the first time in the Supreme Court. After hearing the B learned counsel at some length we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same accordingly, is refused.
M.Y.H. Appeals refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer