Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 166 of 1968, decided on 20th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th December 1967, in Regular First Appeal No. 1 of 1958).
Ss. 6, 7 & 18‑Land acquired under Ss. 6 & 7‑Compensation assessed on appeal under S. 18 by Civil Judge upheld by High Court‑Finding by High Court being un‑exceptionable, held, did not call for any interference‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate‑General West Pakistan (9bdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 20th June 1968.
This petition by the Province of West Pakistan is directed against a judgment passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore.
By a notification, dated the 13th September 1955, issued finder sections 6 and 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, some land Belonging. to Muhammad Fazil, the predecessor of the present respondents was acquired and the Land Acquisition Collector, by his award, assessed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,715 per acre. On objection by the land‑owner, a reference was made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was decided by the Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha and he, by his award, assessed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per acre. Both sides appealed to the High Court against this decision. The learned Judges in the High Court, by their judgment, dated the 15th December 1967, dismissed both the appeals.
The learned Advocate‑General has contended that at one time the land in question belonged to the Government and had been given to the owner, on the expressed condition that the grant was for agricultural purposes only and the same could not be used for building purposes. This being the position, it is urged, that the Courts below were wrong in assessing the value of the land in question as a potential building site. This conten tion was raised also in the High Court and was repelled, on the finding that in one case at least the Government had permitted such land to be used for residential purposes on receipt of Rs. 1,000 per kanal as royalty and some other applications were also pending with the Government. It was further found that according to paragraph 153 of the Colony Manual the prohibi tion was inserted in the terms of the grant to prevent the conversion of the land bought at reduced rate to speculative uses such as the erection of a Ginning Factory to the detriment of the factories sold by the Government in the neighbouring mandis. It is in these circumstances the argument that in view of the terms of the grant under which the land was acquired by the owner it could be valued as adapted for agricultural use only and all other potentialities must be ignored did not find favour. It was found that the land is situated in the vicinity of the expanding town of Sargodha and therefore the potentiality of the land as a building site could not be all together ruled out. The learned Judges, however, thought that the land could be converted into a building site only with the permission of the Government on suitable terms and that in a given case such permission could be withheld must be kept in view in arriving at the market value of the land. They after this having taken into account a number of transactions in the locality and the fact that some Textile Mills had come into existence there giving a fillip to the upward tendency in the price found that the valuation arrived at by the learned Civil Judge was not excessive.
The findings arrived at by the learned Judges in the High Court appears to us to be unexceptionable and they do not call for interference by this Court.
The learned Advocate‑General has lastly argued that one of the conditions of the grant was that in case of breach of any one of the terms the land was liable to be resumed by the Govern ment and therefore as the land could only be used for agricultural purposes its valuation as a potential building site was wholly illegal. The argument does not appear to have any force. All that has been done in this case is to value it as a potential building site taking into account the terms on which permission for such use could be had from the Government and that in a given case such permission could be withheld. The clause regarding resumption is therefore not attracted. This petition has no merits and is therefore dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer