| Case ID |
2327534a-a181-44b6-928d-ea5e8ee5e67a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil PLA No. 136 of 2018 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 10, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 10, 2018 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court (AJ&K) in Civil PLA No. 136 of 2018, dated October 10, 2018, dismissed the petition for leave to appeal filed by the Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary and 3 others. The court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 109/2016, referencing the Limitation Act, 1908, Section 3. The petitioner’s counsel failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the belated filing of the appeal, leading to the decision being time-barred. The court emphasized that void orders affecting a party's rights must be challenged within a reasonable time and that mere non-intimation by counsel does not excuse the delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, reinforcing the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines and procedural norms in legal proceedings. |
| Summary |
In the pivotal case of Civil PLA No. 136 of 2018, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K) on October 10, 2018, the central issue revolved around the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal under the Limitation Act, 1908. The petitioner, Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir through Secretary and 3 others, contested the High Court's order dated February 9, 2018, in Civil Appeal No. 109/2016, which had dismissed their appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The legal focus of the case was primarily on Section 3 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the acquisition of land and the assessment thereof. The land in question, comprising Survey Nos. 1276 and 1277 in Poonch, was acquired for the construction of Govt. Boys High School Phalyian, with compensation initially assessed at Rs. 86,836 per kanal plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Dissatisfied, the landowners filed a reference before the District Judge, which later led to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 per kanal. The petitioner challenged this decision, but the High Court dismissed the appeal citing the timely filing in accordance with legal limitations, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. Advocates Sardar Karam Dad Khan and Sardar Muhammad Riaz Khan represented the petitioner and respondent, respectively. The Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Raja Saeed Akram Khan, maintained that the defense of delay cannot be accepted merely on the grounds of counsel's failure to inform the party and emphasized that void orders require timely challenges to protect parties' rights. The court referenced several pertinent judgments, including those from 2003 SCR 240, 2013 SCR 1102, and notable cases like Sultan Mehmood vs. Barkat Ali, reinforcing the principle that delay in challenging a void order cannot be condoned without sufficient cause. The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding legal timeframes and ensuring that parties adhere to procedural norms, thereby maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the legal process in land acquisition disputes. This case serves as a crucial reference for future litigations involving limitation laws and land acquisition compensations, highlighting the necessity for timely legal actions and the non-negotiable nature of statutory deadlines in Pakistani jurisprudence. The Supreme Court's ruling not only dismissed the petition but also set a precedent emphasizing that legal practitioners must diligently inform their clients to avoid procedural lapses that could adversely affect their cases. |
| Court |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
|
| Entities Involved |
Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir,
Secretary and 3 Others,
Mukhtar Ahmed and Others,
Collector Land Acquisition Poonch,
Govt. Boys High School Phalyian,
District Judge/Reference Judge Rawalakot,
Additional District Judge/Reference Judge
|
| Judges |
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Sardar Karam Dad Khan,
Sardar Muhammad Riaz Khan
|
| Petitioners |
AZAD GOVT. OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH SECRETARY AND 3 OTHERS
|
| Respondents |
MUKHTAR AHMED AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 1059,
2019 PLJ 15
|
| Other Citations |
2003 SCR 240,
2013 SCR 1102,
Sultan Mehmood & others vs. Barkat Ali & another [2009 SCR 158],
Ch. Muhammad Zaman vs. Amir Hanif & 19 others [2014 SCR 1571],
Muhammad Iqbal and 14 others vs. Custodian & 23 others [2016 SCR 358],
Mirza Lal Hussain vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others [1992 SCR 214],
Chairman AJK Council v. Abdul Latif and 5 others [1997 SCR 264],
Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs. Muhammad Shafi and 9 others [2013 SCR 1102]
|
| Laws Involved |
Limitation Act, 1908
|
| Sections |
3
|