Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Respondent: SHER MUHAMMAD And Another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, Aslam Riaz Hussain, M. S. H. Qureshi Title: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs SHER MUHAMMAD And Another Case No.: Civil Petition No.666 of 1982 R.A. No. 17-C/82 Date of Judgment:1982-11-08 Reported As: 1987 SCMR 1351 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--For the lands of the respondents acquired for the Lahore Township Scheme vide notification dated 3-5-1960, the civil Court on a reference made to under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, allowed the respondents compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000 per Kanal. The petitioner, i.e., province of the Punjab thereon filed a Regular First Appeal in the Lahore High Court and also applied for stay of the execution proceedings. The High Court on 13-6-1982 declined to grant the stay but permitted the respondents to receive the money only on furnishing security for refund if the appeal ultimately succeeds. The petitioner sought review of the order and raised a number of contentions which the learned Judges felt had not been raised earlier and not finding any justifiable ground declined to review vide order dated 4-7-1982. This petition is directed against both the orders. 2. Learned counsel submits that there are many legal questions involved in the appeal, such as maintainability of the reference which had been filed after the award had been accepted by the respondents, limitation and computation of interest, etc. He even urges that funds are not available with the Government to pay the amount of the award. The legal points involved will, of course, be attended to by the High Court when deciding the appeal. The plea of non-availability of funds can hardly justify stay of the execution proceeding. The High Court has already ordered that the payment will be subject to furnishing security for refund and as such we find no proper justification for interfering with an interim and discretionary matter. The petition is dismissed.