June 05, 2008	Thursday	Jamadi-ul-Awwal 30, 1429

KARACHI, June 4: A Sindh High Court division bench set aside on Wednesday a single judge’s order for payment of interest to the owners of the land acquired for the Pakistan Steel Mills on the compensation paid to them.

The judge had allowed the owners’ plea rectifying a 1985 judgment by another single judge. The 1985 judgment called for payment of compensation to the owners of the land acquired for the PSM in 1974 under the Land Acquisition Act. There was no mention of interest on the amount of compensation.

The owners approached the high court for payment of interest through Advocate Adnan Memon saying that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The judge allowed the plea holding that the owners could not be denied the benefit of the provision. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, he said the interest must have been left out in the 1985 judgment because of a clerical or accidental mistake.

The single judge’s order was challenged by the PSM through Advocate Mohammad Nawaz Shaikh. Assailing the order, the lawyer argued that the judge had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 152 of the CPC. Almost all the owners, he contended, had been paid due compensation and no amount was outstanding against the PSM. The omission of ‘interest’ could not be ascribed to a ‘mistake’ after 23 years of the passing of the impugned judgment.

The division bench, which consisted of acting Chief Justice Azizullah M. Memon and Justice Arshad Noor Khan, set aside the single judge’s order and remanded the case to him for re-hearing in the light of its observations.

Notices to bank

Another division bench consisting of Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Syed Pir Ali Shah issued notices to the State Bank of Pakistan, the Muslim Commercial Bank and M/s Orix Leasing.

The petitioner, Sakhawat Hussain, submitted through Advocate Omar Farooq Khan that he acquired a Toyota car on lease from M/s Orix Leasing for Rs1.4 million. He paid all the instalments and only the last payment was outstanding against him. On April 14, the petitioner alleged, a Muslim Commercial Bank employee hired by the leasing company approached him for hiring his car. The car was never returned to him. He had thus been deprived of his car which he had almost fully paid for.

Bail granted

Another vacation division bench comprising Justices Rana M. Shamim and Ghulam Dastgir Shahani granted interim bail before arrest to Ghulam Qambar Panhwar, former district revenue officer, Thatta, in the sum of Rs500,000. His counsel, Advocate Raza Hashmi, argued that the offence was alleged to have been committed in 2003-2004 while the accused retired from service early in 2003. He said the accused was a cancer patient and his incarceration would adversely affect his condition. He assured the bench that there was no possibility of the accused evading his trial.