DIRECTOR GENERAL (HQS) CIVIL WORKS ORGANIZATION (CWO), RAWALPINDI vs Syed WALI SHAH

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

DIRECTOR GENERAL (HQS) CIVIL WORKS ORGANIZATION (CWO), RAWALPINDI VS Syed WALI SHAH. O. XXVII, R. 8-A, O. XXI, R. 23-A, O. XLI, Rr. 5, 6 & S. 47---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss. 18, 30 & 31---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Respondents' land acquired---Compensation enhanced in favour of land owners---Execution application filed---Government/ acquiring agency (judgment debtor) filing objections---Objections filed without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security---Effect and legality---Competency, consideration and maintainability of objections before the executing court---Scope---Facts in brevity were that the land belonging to the respondents (land owners) was acquired for defence purposes under an award, after which the reference court enhanced the compensation and subsequently High Court upheld the enhancement---During execution the executing court verified the relevant revenue record including goshwaras, naqsha-e-tajwizi, khana-e-malkiat, khana-e-kasht and acquaintance roll and upheld respondents' entitlement and dismissed the department's objections for non-compliance with Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C., which order was then affirmed by the High Court---The legal issue was "whether a government department, as judgment-debtor, could maintain objections in execution without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security, and whether Order XXVII, Rule 8-A, C.P.C. provided any exemption from the mandatory precondition under Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C."?---Held: Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C. squarely governed objections by a judgment-debtor in execution and stipulated a jurisdictional precondition that, in the case of a money decree, the judgment-debtor must either deposit the decretal amount in court or furnish security for its payment, and in the case of any other decree must furnish security for due performance---Unless that condition is met, the court could not consider the objection---The petitioner did not deposit the decretal amount nor did it furnish security---The executing court and the High Court were therefore correct to treat the objections as not maintainable---Order XXVII, Rule 8-A, C.P.C. concerned exemption from furnishing security in specified situations where Government or a public officer was a party and tied to stays in appellate proceedings under Order XLI, Rules 5 & 6, C.P.C. and it did not override, qualify or dilute the mandatory precondition in execution envisaged by Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C.---The High Court rightly rejected reliance on Order XXVII, Rule 8-A at the execution stage under Section 47, C.P.C.---Execution questions arising between the parties as to discharge or satisfaction of the decree lay before the executing court under Section 47, C.P.C.---Here, that court exercised its jurisdiction, tested ownership and entitlement on the revenue record, and rejected the objections---Those concurrent findings, affirmed by the High Court, disclosed no misreading or non-reading of material, no jurisdictional defect, and no perversity occasioning miscarriage of justice to warrant interference in leave jurisdiction under Article 185(3)---For completeness, while deposits in land acquisition matters were contemplated by Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in specified circumstances, the immediate bar to entertaining the petitioner's objections flew from Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C.---Without deposit of the decretal amount or furnishing security, the objections could not be considered---No illegality was pointed out in the impugned judgment warranting interference by the Supreme Court---Leave was declined and the petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

DIRECTOR GENERAL (HQS) CIVIL WORKS ORGANIZATION (CWO), RAWALPINDI vs Syed WALI SHAH — 2026 PLD 49 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD