National Highway Authority vs Ghulam Ali O — 2025 MLD 1075 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

National Highway Authority VS Ghulam Ali O.XXI ---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 19---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S.31 ---Land acquisition---Compensation---Execution proceedings ---Fresh limitation period---Promissory estoppel and acquiescence---Scope---Bar on raising contrary pleas discussed---Where petitioners previously undertook to satisfy the decree and benefited from adjournments, they stood estopped from subsequently raising limitation as a defence and their conduct amounted to acquiescence and attracted the doctrine of promissory estoppel and a fresh period of limitation was to commence under S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Right to compensation was not extinguished by delay---The statutory scheme under S.31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not extinguish the right to compensation due to delay in claiming or receiving it and the acquiring authority was obligated to pay compensation irrespective of such delay---In the instant case the petitioners challenged the orders passed by the courts below, whereby, the executing court had directed the petitioners (judgment debtors) to deposit the decretal amount for onward distribution to the legal heirs of Respondent No.1 (deceased decree-holder)---The primary controversy between the parties was as to "whether the execution petition filed by the respondents was within limitation and maintainable"---Petitioners contended that the execution petition was time-barred, as the original litigation concluded on 03.03.2004---Petitioners asserted that limitation should run from the finality of litigation on 03.03.2004, hence the execution petition filed on 11.02.2010 was barred by time---High Court observed that on one hand the objections were raised by the petitioners that execution petition was barred by time and petitioners were not bound to pay the remaining amount, and the other side of the picture was whether they were ready to return the land which was acquired for construction of motorway which seemed not possible---If the land acquired was not returnable then point of limitation could not be raised---State institutions were not supposed to hide behind technicalities and they were required to fulfill the cause of substantial justice---Apart from this, S.31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 required payment of subject land at very initial stage and it was nowhere provided that in case of non-receiving of compensation or approaching for the same with delay, the right to receive the compensation would be extinguished---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, thus acquiescence and promissory estoppel came in the way when point of limitation was raised---As per S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 after acknowledgments, which were made by the petitioners, a fresh period of limitation was to be computed---No illegality, legal infirmity, jurisdictional defect, mis-reading, non-reading of record was found in the impugned order---The objection that execution was time-barred was held to be legally untenable---Civil revision being devoid of merits was dismissed.

National Highway Authority vs Ghulam Ali O — 2025 MLD 1075 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD