31/2004 Execution DILAWAR HUSSAIN & ORS (Decree Holder) V/S THE PROVINCE OF SINDH & ORS. (Judgment Debtor)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 24-APR-15
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)--- ----Ss. 4 & 28-A [omitted by Land Acquisition (Sindh Amendment) Act, (XVI of 2010), S.4]---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.6---Execution of decree---Repealed of a provision---Effect---Expression 'shall be deemed to have been omitted as if it so had never existed' occurring in the amending Act omitting S.28-A---Interpretation---Non-obstante clause---Effect---Decree holder filed application to withdraw decretal amount lying with Nazir of the Court---Judgment debtor raised objection that decretal amount included additional amount in view of S.28-A which stood repealed with effect from 12-7-2010---Judgment debtor contended that expression 'shall be deemed to been omitted as if it so had never existed' occurring in S.28-A of Land Acquisition, 1894 implied that no benefit was available to decree holder whose land had been required under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Decree holder averred that amendment could not be made retrospectively to deprive anyone of lawful right accrued to him by operation of law or decree of court---Validity---Benefit available to decree holder would not be accounted from the date of notification of amendment---Payment of compensation under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with S.28-A of the Act was time bound and kept multiplying by fifteen percent per annum---Provision of S.28-A of the Act was applicable in case of decree holder whose land had been acquired in 1960 and it could not be deemed to have been non-existent retrospectively---Legislature had not intended to take away effect of judgment and decree already passed otherwise it should have been specifically mentioned by use of non-obstante clause---Any enactment subsequent to judgment and decree extending benefit in favour of decree holder could not be read to nullify judgment unless such judgment and decree had been mentioned in enactment itself---Provisions contained in S.6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 protected the judgment and decree against any amendment. Nazeer Ahmed and others v. Ghulam Mehdi and others PLD 1988 SC 824 rel. Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Muhammad Saeed PLD 1961 SC 192 distinguished. (b) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)--- ----S. 6---Scope---Repeal---Effect---Provisions contained in S.6, General Clauses Act, 1897 protected the judgment and decree against any amendment.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.