Case ID |
16a0ae78-2a63-4c61-9d2b-8e98ef2c36d9 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
C.F.A. No. 7 of 2017 |
Decision Date |
Apr 04, 2017 |
Hearing Date |
Apr 04, 2017 |
Decision |
The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's mala fide intentions and frivolous claims. It was noted that the appellant failed to comply with the Chief Court's order to deposit the compensation amount in the Reference Court. The Chief Court had already directed that the amount received by the landowner be deposited, and the appellant's continued non-compliance was seen as a delay tactic. The Reference Court was instructed to take coercive steps if necessary to enforce the Chief Court's order. The finality of the order dated 06-02-2017 was emphasized, and the case was deemed frivolous without any legal basis for continuation. |
Summary |
In the case of C.F.A. No. 7 of 2017, the Chief Court addressed a civil first appeal concerning the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly focusing on Section 18, which deals with compensation disputes. The appellant, Saifullah, contested an order from the learned Vacation District Judge Gilgit regarding a compensation amount of Rs. 4,94,56,250. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with previous orders and highlighted the frivolous nature of the appeal, noting that the appellant had not acted upon earlier directives. The court's ruling underscored that the appeal was based on mala fides, affirming the necessity for legal compliance and efficient judicial process. This case illustrates the enforcement of legal orders and the consequences of non-compliance within land acquisition disputes. |
Court |
Chief Court
|
Entities Involved |
Not available
|
Judges |
MUHAMMAD ALAM,
SAHIB KHAN
|
Lawyers |
Shahid Abbas Junior to Counsel,
Johar Ali
|
Petitioners |
SAIFULLAH
|
Respondents |
MALIKAN BOTOKHAIL THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS
|
Citations |
2019 SLD 629 = 2019 MLD 365
|
Other Citations |
Not available
|
Laws Involved |
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
|
Sections |
18
|