The Government Entities are not entitled to Special Treatment in Limitation Cases and Internal Communication delays do not Justify Condonation --- Lahore High Court, Lahore
Islamabad 18-03-2025: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court (LHC) dismissed an appeal filed by the Province of Punjab through the Secretary, Sports & Youth Affairs Department, challenging a trial Court’s decision to enhance land compensation. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to a 318-day delay in filing, with the Court emphasizing that government departments are not entitled to special leniency in limitation matters.
The Sports & Youth Affairs Department had acquired 140 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land in Mustafabad Bairoon, Kasur, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) awarded compensation in 2014, but landowners filed references for enhancement. On January 9, 2024, the Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, partially accepted the references and increased compensation to Rs. 10 million per acre, along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% annual compound interest.
The Punjab Government filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but it was delayed by 318 days. The government argued that the department became aware of the judgment only on January 13, 2025, due to internal communication delays. However, the Court ruled that internal departmental inefficiencies cannot justify delay and dismissed the appeal.
The Lahore High Court relied on multiple Supreme Court precedents, reinforcing the following legal principles:
- Limitation is not a mere technicality: Asad Ali Vs. Bank of Punjab (PLD 2020 SC 736).
- Government entities are treated as ordinary litigants: Town Administration Vs. Muhammad Khalid (2024 SCMR 1852).
- Each day of delay must be justified: Province of Punjab Vs. Kishwar Qudus Paul (2004 SCMR 571).
- Internal correspondence is not a valid ground for condonation: Government of Pakistan Vs. Malbrow Builders (2006 SCMR 1248).
Dismissing the appeal, the bench upheld the trial Court’s ruling, affirming that delay beyond the prescribed limitation period results in the extinction of legal remedies. The decision reinforces the principle that the law favors the vigilant, not the negligent.
Powered by Froala Editor
