Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2016 Y L R 1117

[Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court]

Before Sahib Khan C.J. and Muhammad Alam, J

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit and 5 others---Appellants

Versus

TAJ ALAM---Respondent

C.F.A. No.8 of 2012, decided on 23rd June, 2015.

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----S. 18---Land acquisition---Reference to court---Enhancement of compensation---Collector awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- per kanal---Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount and fixed same at Rs. 2,90,000/- per kanal---Validity---Amount awarded through award was insufficient---Trial Court had rightly enhanced the amount in accordance with evidence on record---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Additional Advocate General for Appellants.

Manzoor Ahmed and Mohammad Jan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23d June, 2015.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the impugned judgment/decree dated 12-05-2012, passed by the learned District Judge/Referee Court Ghizer, in Reference No.02/2009, appellants/respondents filed this Civil First Appeal. 2. Learned trial court passed impugned decree/ judgment in a reference made to the said court through District Collector Ghizer. Respondent did not feel satisfied with the award dated 15-03-2006 of the District Collector Ghizer and applied through petition dated 20-07-2006, seeking reference in the light of provisions of Land Acquisition Act. After completing trial of the reference, so obtained, the learned trial court of District Judge Ghizer passed impugned judgment/decree. Through the award, the Collector Ghizer awarded Rs.150,000/- (One Lac Fifty Thousand) per kanal, while the learned trial court enhanced the same to Rs.290,000/- (Two Lac Ninety Thousand) per kanal.

3. We have gone through the file and have heard learned Additional Advocate General for appellants and learned counsel for respondent. Learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for respondent argued on the appeal, mainly on the ground that the evidence relied upon by the learned trial court, while passing impugned judgment/decree, is sufficient for recording/basing the impugned judgment or not. In this connection, learned trial court has relied on the document Exh.P.1/A. Learned Additional Advocate General failed to point out any defect in the said document and other evidence of the respondent, which is bases of the impugned judgment/ decree. The documentary evidence relied by the learned trial court shows that the initially awarded amount through award dated 15-03-2006 is insufficient and the trial court has rightly enhanced the same in accordance with the documentary evidence. So, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

4. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal holding the same as baseless. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. This file be consigned to record.

ZC/118/GB Appeal dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant