TAHIR JAMEEL vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Lahore S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

TAHIR JAMEEL VS LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Lahore S.25-B (7) [as amended through Lahore Development Authority (Amendment) Act (XXVI of 2013)]---Section 25-B (7) of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975---No restrospective effect---Section 25-B(7), was amended vide Lahore Development Authority (Amendment) Act (XXVI of 2013), which does not have any retrospective effect---An amendment in a section or its substitution which curtails substantive right or accrued right can not itself have a retrospective effect unless the Legislature elected to give it retrospective effect---Therefore, substituted or amended section of a Statute cannot obliterate accrued or vested rights ---In the present case, as S.25-B was added through an amendment in the year 2013 whereby substantive rights of the awardees were curtailed without giving it retrospective effect, therefore, said amendment could not affect the accrued rights before the amendment---High Court set-aside impugned letter / correspondence, declaring the same as illegal and without lawful authority ; and remitted the matter to the concerned respondent ( Director Land Development) with direction to redress petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law, after appreciating the available record as well as applicable law and contentions of the petitioner---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 996 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE TAHIR JAMEEL VS LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Lahore arts. 199 & 4---Constitutional powers of the High Court---Scope---High Court in view of special circumstances, has ample powers to give direction to public functionaries to act in accordance with law by virtue of arts. 4 & 199 of the Constitution, and can set-aside an order passed by the authorities which is not valid in the eye of law. Citation Name: 2024 CLC 996 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE TAHIR JAMEEL VS LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Lahore S.25-B(7) [as amended through Lahore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2013]---Exemption of land---Entitlement to---Petitioner (awardee) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging letter / correspondence issued by the respondent (Director Land Development, Lahore Development Authority) whereby he was advised to contact his vendors in order to recover the claimed compensation---Contention of the petitioner was that he was entitled for exemption of his acquired land and the same was granted pursuant to order passed by the concerned Commissioner, but subsequently the same had been given to some other person on the basis of an ex-parte decree, which had already been set aside---Validity---It was not discernable from the record as to whether any notice was served upon the petitioner or he was associated while conducting and finalizing Exemption proceedings in favour of decree-holders of ex-parte decree, which was subsequently set-aside---It was unimaginable that when the entire process of exemption was completed, how could the Award be cancelled even without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner merely on the basis of an ex-parte decree ---Any order passed against an aggrieved person, without providing him/her proper hearing or giving any reasons , is un-sustainable in the eye of law as the public functionaries are obliged to follow the principles of natural justice while deciding rights of the parties ---Petitioner had paid the entire development charges as directed by the LDA in the year 1998, hence, the process of subsequent exemption in favour of another party could not have been finalized without associating the earlier exemptee---Petitioner was entitled to due process, right to be treated fairly at all times, right to procedural fairness and right to procedural propriety---Petitioner, being a citizen of the Pakistan, had the right to fair procedure guaranteed constitutionally---High Court set-aside impugned letter / correspondence, declaring the same as illegal and without lawful Authority ; and remitted the matter to the concerned respondent (Director Land Development) with direction to redress petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law, after appreciating the available record as well as applicable law and contentions of the petitioner---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

TAHIR JAMEEL vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General, Lahore S — 2024 CLC 996 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLC