LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that compensation rights of citizens cannot be extinguished in any manner.
The court further observed that under the Land Acquisition Act the right to receive the compensation would not be quenched on non-receiving of compensation or approaching for the same with delay.
The court passed this order in a petition of National Highway Authority challenging the decisions of the lower court directing the petitioner authority to deposit the decrial amount in the court for its onward distribution to the legal representatives of Ghulam Ali.
BoR can’t cancel allotment after proprietary rights vested thru registered sale deed: LHC
The court said Section 31 of the Act requires the payment of subject land at very initial stage and it is nowhere provided in the Act that in case of non-receiving of compensation or approaching for the same with delay, the right to receive the compensation would be extinguished.
The court noted that apart from making partial payment of compensation of land acquired from respondents, they kept on promising and gaining time for satisfaction of decree during the execution proceedings.
The court said if the objection raised by the petitioners’ counsel that execution petition was barred by time and petitioners are not bound to pay the remaining amount, then the other side of the picture is whether they are ready to return the land which was acquired for construction of motorway which is not possible now. If the land acquired by the petitioners is not returnable, then they cannot raise the point of limitation, the court added.
The court observed that state institutions are not supposed to hide behind the technicalities and they are required to fulfil the cause of substantial justice.
It is very unfortunate to note that instead of being thankful to the respondents from whom land was acquired for the mega project (Motorway), petitioners have made them rolling stones as despite lapse of such a considerable period of about 10 years and decisions of courts in their favour, they have not been paid according to their entitlement, the court added.
The court further observed that state run institutions, working in a representative form, are not expected to exploit the vulnerability of citizens. The court said the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners, in the light of admissions and promises made by petitioners’ side before the executing court, the same are not applicable to the facts of present case.
The court; therefore, dismissed the petition and observed that this court does not find any illegality, legal infirmity, jurisdictional defect, misreading, non-reading of record in the impugned order and judgment to which no exception can be taken by this court in revision jurisdiction.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments