Muhammad Jamil and others Vs. N.H.A & Others

STIEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

|TIINI'TII

(Judicial Department)

Muhammad Jamil and others Yersus

NHA and others

Date of hearing:

For appellants: Sardar Naeem Khan, Advocate.

For respondents: Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, Advocate.

Through this

consolidated judgment, I propose to decide the following twelve (12) interconnected Regular First Appeals namely:

l. RF.A. No. 149-8 of 2020 (Muhammad Jamil & others -V- N.H.A & others) instituted on 16.12.2020, aganst the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge- Il/Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 05.11.2020.

2.R.F.A. No. 150-8 of 2020 (Hakeem Khan & others - V- N.H.A.& others) instituted on 16.12.2020, against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge- IUReferee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 05.11.2020.

3.R.F.A No. l5l-B of 2020 (Wareshmin & others -V- N.H.A.& others) instituted on 16.12.2020, against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge- Il/Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 05.11.2020.

4.R.F.A. No. 152-8 of 2020 (Fazal Rahim & another -V-

N.H.A. & others) instituted on 16.12.2020, against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge- IVReferee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 05.11.2020'

5.R.F.A. No. 03-B of 2021 (P'D' N'H.A. & others -V- Ameer Nawaz & others) instituted on 15'01'2021, against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge-Il/Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 05.n.2020.

6 .A. No. 04-B of 2021 (P.D' N.H.A. & others -V- Fazal Ralreem & others) instituted ot 15.01.2021, against the judgment and decree of Additional Disfict Judge-Il/Referee Judge, Lalfri Marwat dated

7.R.F.A. No. 05-B of 2021(P'D. N'H.A' & others -V- Muhammad Jamil & others) instituted on 15.01.2021, against the judgment and decree of Additional Disfrict Judge-Il/Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated

05. I 1.2020.

8.R.F.A. No. 06-B of 2021(P.D. N.H.A. & others -V- Hakeem Khan & others) instituted on 15.01.2021, against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge-Il/Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 05.n.2020.

9.R.F.A. No. l2-B of 2021 (Atlas Khan & others -V- Govemment of K.P & others) instituted on19.03.2021, against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge-Il/Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated l0.R.F.A. No.47-B of 2021(L.A.C.N.H.A. D.I. Khan & others -V- Habib ur Rehman & another) instituted on 01.06.2021, against the judgment and decree of

Additional Distict Judge-Il/Referee ludge, Lakki Marwat dated I 8.01.2021.

l1.RF.A. No. 52-B of 2021(L'A'C'N.H'A. D.I. Khan & others -V- Atlas Khan & others) instituted on lO.Ol.2O2l, against the judgment and decree of Additional District JudgeJl/Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 18.01.2021'

|2.R.F.A. No. 6l-8 of 2021(L'A'C'N.H.A' D'I. Khan & others -V- Ali Khan & others) instituted on 16.09.202l, against the judgment and decree of Additional District ludge-Il/Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 26.05.2021,

2.The aforementioned appeals, filed by private \l individualVlandowners and the National Highway Authority (NHA), challenge the legality and validity of the judgment and decrees dated 05.11.2020, 18.01.2021 and 26.05.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-Il/Referee Iudge, Lakki Marwat, whereby the reference applications were decided and Awrd No.03 dated D.I.Khan the 08.06.2009 was modified and the compensation for commercial land initially assessed at Rs.91400/- per Kanal and for Barani/Rod Kohi land, initially fixed at Rs'20,208'60 per Kanal was enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- per Kanal, along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges; however, interest at the rate of6% on the enhanced amount was declined.

3.Brief facts of the case are that landed property measuring 432 Kanal and 04 Marla in Moza Shahbaz Khel, Tehsil and Disfiict, Lakki Marwat was acquired for the

n construction of " D. I. Klnn-SeraiGambila Road Proi ect " ${'

55)NHA vide Award No.03 dated D.I'Khan the 08'06'2009'

4.The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for commercial land at Rs'91400/- per Kanal

and for Barani/Rod Kohi lan4 at Rs.20,208'60 per Kanal' however, the claim of the private individuals/ landowners for compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of l5% and interest at the rate of6% on the enhanced amount was declined'

5.The land owners challenged the assessed amount of compensation by filing separate applications u/s 18 of the I Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement of the awarded compensation. The learned Referee Judge/ Additional District Judge, Lakki Marwat, after conducting a full-fledged fiial, vide judgment and decree dated 16-02- 2012, partially accepted the application/objection petitions and enhanced the compensation of the acquired land, determining different rates for various Khasra numbers' The said findings of the leamed Referee Court were challenged through several Regular First Appeals.

6.This Court, vide judgment dated 06.09.2018, allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees of the learned Referee Courts, and remanded the matters with directions to the Referee Court to appoint a fresh Local Commission for determining the market value of the land in accordance with law, and to decide the cases afresh thereafter.

7.In compliance with the remand directions, the leamed Referee Court appointed a fresh Local Commission, who submitted his report. Objections to the report were invited, and thereafter the Commission was examined as CW-01' After hearing arguments of the parties, the leamed Referee Judge, videjudgment and decree dated 05.11.2020, fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs' 300,000/- per Kanal, along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges; however, interest at the rate of 60/o on the enhanced amount was declined.

8.Feeling aggrieved, the appeals are preferred against the n impugred judgment and decree by the rival parties.

9.Arguments heard and record perused.

10.The Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which is the primary legislation goveming land acquisition in Pakistan, has its roots in earlier laws established during the British colonial period. The historical background ofthis legislation can be traced back to the Bengal Regulation of 1824, which was the first piece of legislation in India regarding the acquisition of property. This regulation aimed to provide rules for govemment officers to obtain land or other immovable property at a fah valuation. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the acquisition of land for public purposes and to provide for the payment of compensation to the persons interested in such land. The Act was desigred to facilitate the acquisition

of land for various public projects, including infrastructure development, urban planning, and other governmental initiatives. It established a framework for the process of land acquisition, including the notification process, assessment of compensation, and the rights of landowners. Over the years, the Act has undergone several amendments to address various issues and to align with changing socio-economic conditions.

For instance, the provisions regarding compensation have been a focal point of contention, leading to judicial interpretations and modifications in the practice. The Act's application has been challenged in various cases, highlighting the need for fair compensation and adherence to principles of \r natural justice during the acquisition process. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 emerged from a historical context of colonial land policies and has evolved through legislative amendments and judicial scrutiny to address the complexities of land acquisition in Pakistan. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 provides elaborate guidelines for determination of amount of compensation of the acquired land that are to be considered at the time of fixation of compensation. Wisdom in this regard is sought from the case law reported as "Malik Tariq Mahmood and others -V- Province of Punjab and others" (2023 SCMR 102).Para7 of the judgment supra is reproduced for ready reference;

7.The quintessence of the above argurnents reminds us that the main issue to be resolved in this case had two components. The /irst was about the nature and

classification of the land, while the second related to its value. Before we enter upon considering the evidence adduced on the said issue, w€ deem it appropriate to state some of the principles on which compensation is required to be determined. Under section 23(l) of the Act, compensation is to be determined on the basis of the marleet value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The Court assessing compensation is required to takp into consideration not only the present purpose or the present use to which the land is applied but qlso any other more beneficial purpose to which it might reasonably be put by the owner. Indubitably, it is true that regard can be had only to a the existing conditions and what is likely to happen in reasonably near future and compensation cannot be /ixed on the basis ofwhat might happen in the dim and distant future. Where there is a reasonable possibility of the land being put to a rnore pro/itable use within a reasonable period the same cannot be ignored in assessing its value. Compensation has always to be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor may reasonably expect to obtainfrom a willing purchaser. When the land possesses some unusual, special or unique features as to its location or potentialities, due weight must be attached to qll these elements. Afier considering all the circumstances, the Court has to arrive at a fair estimate with reference to the surrounding circumstances and evidence in the case and to award a fair cotnpercation on that basis.

The Court ftrther ought to be liberal in the sense that it should not be too meticulous or pedantic in dealing with the evidence. It is also true that an entry in the revenue record as to the nature of the land may not be conclusive. If the land acquired is found to

n Page-8-of20

be useful both for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes, merely on the ground that it was used as agricultural land by the owner till the time of its acquisition, its potentiality as non-agricultural land cannot be ignored.

11.Award No. 03, pertaining to the acquired land, holds considerable significance. In its Part B, captioned "Proceedings," it is explicitly recorded that 38 individuals/ landowners, in response to notices issued under Sections 9 and l0 of the Land Acquisition Act, appeared before the Collector and claimed compensation for the land situated adjacent to the existing D.I. Khan-Bannu Road at the rate of 4 Rs. 1,600,000/- per Kanal. Furthermore, landowners whose land falls within hilly areas, allegedly rich in various minerals and purportedly destroyed due to the acquisition, demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 900,000/- per Kanal. They also produced six mutations duly recorded in the award, in support of their claim, however the Land Acquisition Collector, while admifting that the valuation table reflected only the minimum market rute of the acquired land, nevertheless fixed the compensation on the basis of the valuation table for the year for the year 2006-07, applicable to Distict Lakki Marwa! thereby disregarding the higher market value evidenced through the mutations and the nature and location of the acquired land. The learned Referee Court had previously rejected the report of the local commission and proceeded to decide the case. Thereafter, this court

directed the appointment of a fresh commission for

land in redetermination of the market value of the acquired accordance with law'

It is pertinent to mention that in first report' the local commission had opined that the market value of the acquired

land was Rs. 3,00,000/- per Kanal, whereas in the second assessed report, the subsequently appointed local commission the market value at Rs. 6,00,000/- per Kanal' The learned Referee Court observed that there was a significant disparity in the assessed market value between the I two reports submitted by the Local Commissions' It held that the subsequent Local Commission had exaggerated the valuation of the acquired land by opining it to be t{s' 600,000/- per Kanal, whereas, in the Court's view, the value should have been Rs' 300,000/- per Kanal as suggested in the initial commission report' In light of ttre above observations, the leamed Refetee ludge, vide judgment and decree dated O5.ll.2O2O, fxed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 300,0001- pet Kanal, along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges; however, interest at the rate of6% on the enhanced amount lvas declined' I am unable to concur with the findings of the Referee Judge for the simple reason that the initial repor! which formed the basis ofthe assessment, had already been rejected by the Referee Court itself and as neither party challenged the said rejection, it attained finality.

is There is no denial of the fact ttrat the acquired land situated in close proximity to the Bannu-D'I' Khan Road'

which became a dual cariageway following the construction of the highway on the acquired land' Furthermore' the land

lies near the village Shehbaz Khel, and its immediate vicinity

includes a petrol pump, hotel, and other commercial land establishments, all of which indicate that the acquired and was commercial in nature. In view of the available record evidence on file, it is evident ilrat the Referee Court did not

properly assess the market value ofthe acquired land' having failed to take into account its future potential and commercial \r utility.

As the matter has been pending adjudication for over a decade, this Court does not consider it appropriate to remit the case once again to the leamed trial Court for appointment of a fresh Local Commission merely on account of certain minor objections raised by the acquiring departnent' It is held that, in the interest ofjustice, the case ought to be decided on the basis ofthe available record.

The report of the Local Commission, the evidence adduced by the objectors, and the award itself collectively establish that the acquired land had the potential for commercial use and was likely to appreciate in value in the near fuhre. In view of these factots, this Court is of the considered opinion that fixing compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.600,000/-(six lac) per kanal would

meet the ends of justice. Guidance in this regard is drawn from the judgment reported as "WAPDA through Chairman and others vs. Alam Sher and others" (2023 SCMR 981).

Relevant excerpt from paragraphs 06 and 07 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

6.There is no denial to this fact that the order of the learned Peshawar High Court dated 13.05.2013 by which the matter was rernanded back to the learned Referee Court with a directton to appoint local commission to ascertain the fair and actual marlcet value of the land was netther challenged by the f appellants nor by the respondents before this Court. Therefore, the same had attained /inality. We have perused the report of the Local Commission dated 24.06.2013. The report shows that during the spot inspection, the concerned Patwari Halqa, Patwari CRBC and Moharrir of the Court were also accompanying the Local Commissioner. The report depicts that dffirent mutations of the same mouza pertaining to years 2001 to 2003 were produced before the Local Commission. Those mutations were of the same time when the acquisition process was finalized and the land of the respondents was talcen into possession i.e. 28.02.2002. The same were also made part of the record. During spot tnspection, the statements of dffirent landlords and property dealers of the same vicinity were also recorded, which were also made part of the record. It was also noticed that the land of the respondents was bifurcated in two bloclcs and in one block the land was irrigated through outlet privately built by the respondents over drain, without which, even after acquisition, iruigation of the acquired land was almost impossible. Two years

average for the period 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2003 were also taken on record while determining the fair market vahrc ofthe land ofthe respondents. Arter tuking into consideration the docwnentary evidence in the shape of mutations, two years' average, bifurcation of the acquired land in two dffirent blocks and oral statements of the landlords and proPerty dealers, which were also redrced into writing, and disturbance of inigation sowces of the acquired land, the Local Commissioner came to the conclusion that the fair market value of the land was Rs.25000/- per Kanal. Mr. Mulammad. Ghazanfor Ali, Advocate, who was oppointed Local Commissioner also appeoed before I lhe learned Trial Court and recorded his statement as CW-|. He was put to lengthy cross-emtnination by the appellants but no de/iciency in his report could be brought on record. Mode of determining the compensation of acquired land is provided in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which depicts that the landowner is entitled to compensation and not just marlrct value, as srch, any loss or injwy occasioned by its severing from other property of the landowner, by change of residence or place of business and loss of profi* are also relevant factors.

While conducting said excrcise, oral evidence, iffound credible and reliable cot also be taken into consideration. The requirement of Article 7l of the Qanun-e-Shalwdat Order, 1984, squarely requires that

it slauld be produced directly if the same is in oral form. We have noticed that in the present case, the oral evidence came from a sowce, which no doubt can be termed as direct, because the othcr landowners and property dealers were of the same vicinity and were fully awue of the market/potential value of the land. Even otherwise, the oral statements of the other

landowners and property dealers of the same vicinity had been corroborated with other evidence produced on record, such os, (i) certain mutations in respect of the same mouza, (ii) two years cmerage for the period 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2003 (Ex.PW-3/25), (ii, alcsshajrakishtwar and (iv) khasragirdavvri (Ex.PW-3/2), which revealed that there was cultivation in the suit property up to the year 2004. Learned counsel for the appellants had argued that pursuant to an amendment in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the province of KPK, the compensation has to be determined according to the market value of the land on the date of taking possession of the land. Before proceeding further, it would be in order to 4 reproduce the relevant provision of Land Acquisition Act,l894, which reads as under: -

"23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. (l) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded fo, land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration: First, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notiJication under section 4, subsection (I).

7.This provision stands amended by the NWFP Amendment Ordinance XVil of 2001 in the following terms:-

'First, the market value of the land on the date of taking possession of the land."

12.While determining compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the courts are required to adopt a considerate and sympathetic approach when adjudicating the claims of individuals whose property has

a Page-14-of20

been compulsorily acquired by the State against their will for public purposes. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment reported as "National Highway Authority vs. Rai Ahmad Nawaz Khan and others" (2023 SCMR 700).

Relevant excerpt from paragraph 8 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

8.h is important to state that the intention of the legislature behind section 23 was that whenever a Court is determining the quantum of compensation to be a'ntarded to those who had been subjected to exercise of the power of eminent domain under the 4 LAA 1894, it needs to be considerate and sympathetic towards the claims made by those whose property was compulsorily taken by the State against their will for a public purpose. Section 23 allows a Court to compensate such landowners for giving up their properties for the greater good, on the doctrine of individwl rights must give way to the greater public intere st (saluspopulisuprema lexesto).

13.Before proceeding further, it is essential to address a pertinent legal question: whether the Referee Court or this Court in appellate jurisdiction can enhqnce the compensation beyond the amount specifically claimed by the landowners in their reference applications? The answer to this question is firmly rooted in the principles of justice and statutory interpretation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its authoritative pronouncement reported as "Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Military Estates

A

officer, Hazara circle, Abbottabad and another v. Iulst.

Ayesha Bibi (widow) and others" (2024 SCMR 1323) has conclusively held ttrat the Referee Court may enhance compensation beyond the amount claimed in the reference application, provided that the evidence produced by the parties justifies such enhancement in accordance with Section 23 of the Act. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said judgment categoricatly state that the landowners, whose property has been taken through the exercise of eminent domain, are entitled to fair market value, and that strict adherence to procedural safeguards under Sections 9 and 25 of the Act is f vital. Furthermore, it was emphasized that fairness demands compensation not be arbitarily capped by the originally claimed amount if the evidence reveals a higher valuation.

The Supreme Court thus held:

"...in cases, where there is a failure of strict compliance of the said provisions of the Act, and in particular Sections 9 and 25, then the Referee Court may proceed to adiudge the compensation for the acquired property beyond the amount claimed by the landowners in the reference applications, if the evidence produced by the parties iustify such enhoncement in accordance with Section 23 of the Act..."

14.As an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, the High Court is competent to apply the procedural and substantive provisions governing the original proceedings by invoking Sections 53 and 54 of the Land

,t Page-16-of20

Acquisition Act, 1894 r/w 5.107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In view of the above legal position, the Referee Court, and this Court in appellate jurisdiction, has the tawfut authority to award compensation in excess of the amount claimed by the landowners, where the record and evidence on file support such an enhancement. Any objection to this enhancement merely on the ground of being beyond the initial claim amount is thus devoid of legal merit.

15.The learned Referee Court declined to award 6Yo interest on the compensation amount on the ground that the 4 relevant provision had been deleted from the statute book.

However, in view of the latest amendment to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is evident that the award of 6% simple interest has not been deleted. /For better understanding, the amended Section 28 is reproduced below, which reads as follows:

Section. 28: Collectot may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.- If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the collector ought to have autarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did autard as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall [deposit with the court such amount as determined by itJ. (K.P.K Amendment)

16.In section 28, for the words "pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court," the words "deposit with

A

the Court such amount as determined by it" shall be substituted. By virtue of amendment to section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, as made by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa tegislature, the phrase pertaining to the payment of interest on the excess amormt @ Rs. 60/owds deleted, however, under the amended provision, the Collector is required to deposit the excess amount as determined by the Referee Court, before the court. If the excess amount is deposited in accordance with the amended provision, no interest shall be levied on such amount. Conversely, in the event of failure, on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector or the acquiring department to a deposit the excess amount before the Referee Court, they may not be absolved of their liability to pay interest on the said amount. No doubt, the award of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 is discretionary in nature and the Court may exercise such discretion judiciously, while passing an appropriate order. However, section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa legislature, provides that where the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before the taking possession of the [and, the Collector shall be liable to pay the amount awarded amount along with simple interest at the rate of 6Yo per annum from the date of taking possession,luntil the amount is so paid or deposited. The language employed in the amended section 34 is mandatory in nature obligating the Collector to pay compensation along with interest to be

A

calculated from the date of taking possession until the final payment or deposit of the excess amount is made' Intheaward,itisspecificallyadmittedthatthe acquiring department took possession of the acquired land on 24-04-2009 and the parties are not in dispute on this point.

Although, section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been amended by the province or rnyuff Pakhtunl*rwa, the amendment did not delete the provision for payment of 6% simple interest. Under the amended law, the collector remains bound to pay 6%o interest on the amount of ? :a compensation determined by the court which exceeds the amount already deposited.'In ttre present case, while the Collector is not liable to pay 6% simple interest on the portion of compensation already deposited in court, he is obligated to pay 6% simple interest on the amount adjudged by the court to be in excess of the initial deposit. Guidance in this regard is derived from the case law reported as "Nawabzada Abdul Qadir Khan and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Mqrdan and others". (2023 SCMR 950). Pata 7 of the judgment supra reads as under;

7.Coming to the points raised by the Addittonal Advocate Generals fo, KP, we note that section 34 of the LAA 1894 has never been repealed by the W Provincial Assembly, and therefore have no qualms in arriving at the conclusion that the imposition of six- percent interest imposed by both the Courts had been done inaccordance wtth lav,. To that extent, the Additional Advocate Generals, KP have not been able -a

i Page-19-of20

to potnt out any illegality in the imposition of the six per cent interest by both the Courts below. Section 34 I of the IIU 1894 still holds the fi.eld and continues to do so/ It is, however, important to clarify that unlike rtba/interest that accrues out of a financial obligation between the parties, the word "interest" in section 34 of the LAA 1894 is not interest strictosensu. The interest awarded to landowners under section 34 is compensatory in nature that allows the Court to compensate the landowners for the /inancial loss landowners would suffer fro* the date of acquisition tilt paynent of compensation by the acquiring authority. Untike a financial transaction, where ,d parties are ofien assumed to be equal in bargaining power and qre deemed to be consenting to a transaction, an exercise of eminent domatn cannot in any sense be construed as either q consenting transaction between the parties involved (i.e. the State and the landowners) nor can it be assumed by any stretch of imagination that the state and the landowners are equal in terms of bargaining power. Eminent domatn is, atter all, a unilateral power of the government and no consent .fro* the affected landowners is required under the lan before the state can qcercise eminent domain under the LAA 1894. Even otherwise, as held by this Court in the case of Sheikh Muhammad llyas Ahmed v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence (PLD 2016 SC 64), the bene/it of section j4 is statutory in nature and such benetit cannot be withheld fro* the landowners on the ground that interest has been declared against the injunctions of Islam on the ground that interest has been declared against the injunctions of Islam.

17.In light of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the

findings of the learned Referee Court warrant interference in exercise of appettate jurisdiction; Accordingly, the appeals of the objectors/landowners are partially allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees are modified to the extent that the compensation for the acquired land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lac) per Kanal. The objectors shall also be entitled to simple interest of 6 Yo per annum on the amount of compensation determined in excess of the amount already o/o compulsory deposited in the Referee Court along with 15

acquisition charges. Conversely the appeals filed by the National Highway Authority (N[IA) are dismissed being devoid of merit.

Announced Dt:/,9.06.2025. L Imran/*

JUDGE

(s.8.)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice MulwnmadTariq Afridi

stAlylrluD

B

n