Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), KARACHIHonorable Justice Ajmal MianDasti M. Ibrahim
1989 C L C 1019
1989 C L C 1019
[Karachi]
Before Ajmal Mian and Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, JJ
KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Appellant
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), KARACHI‑‑Respondent High Court Appeal No.95 of 1988, decided on 30th August, 1988.
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑
‑‑‑S.18‑‑Application under S.18 by a local body beneficiary‑ Maintainability‑‑Application to challenge award filed under S.18(3) by the local body for whom land was acquired was rejected‑‑Held, only Provincial Government could make a reference and not a company or a local body on whose behalf the land had been acquired. Pir Khan v. Military Estat Officer, Abbottabad P L D 1987 SC 475 rel. Dasti M. Ibrahim for Appellant.
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6‑4‑1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Reference No.7 of 1987, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that certain lands were acquired in Civil Lines Quarters at the behest of the appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer gave an Award in respect of the said land. It seems that the appellant made an application under section 18 of the Act, which had come up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, who on the basis of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pir Khan v. Military Estate, Abbottabad, reported in P L D 1987 SC 475 has held that the above reference was not competent. The appellant being aggrieved by the above judgment has filed the present appeal.
3. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Dasti M. Ibrahim, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since in N.W.F‑P subsection (3) of section 18 of the Act was omitted the above Supreme Court case is distinguishable. He has further submitted that in view of the above distinction the appellant's aforesaid reference was competent. We are unable to agree with the above submission. Even under subsection (3) of section 18 of the Act it is the Provincial Government. A which can make the reference and not a company or a local body at whose behalf the land has been acquired. The above judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on us.
4. The appeal has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed in limine. M . B . A . / K‑125/ K High Court appeal dismissed.