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.
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 32 and 14‑P of 1972, decided on 9th March 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated the 12th November 1971, in R. F. A. No. 1 of 1969).
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894),
S. 4‑Acquisition of land- Compensation‑Market price of land fixed on basis of price of land in adjoining village‑Fixation of price, held, based on sound judicial principles‑Market price of land ; a question of fact‑Not interfered with by Supreme Court.
Tajamul Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Huisain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 9th March 1972.
This order will dispose of C. P. S. L. A. No. 32 and C. P. S. L. A. No. 14‑P of 1972, which arise from the order of the Peshawar High Court in R. F. A. No. 1 of 1969, dated the 12th November 1971. By this order, compensation for the land in dispute was allowed at Rs. 2,834 per kanal.
5 kanals and 19 marlas of land bearing Khasra Nos. 1118 and 1119 in village Sobra, Tehsil Haripur, District Hazara, have been acquired for Tarbela Dam Project under a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated the 3rd May 1967. The Collector awarded Rs. 179 per kanal as the price of the land. On a reference, the District Judge, Hazara, increased it to Rs. 259 per kanal. The matter was taken in appeal before the Peshawar High Court and in the above‑mentioned appeal, the price of the land in dispute was increased to Rs. 2,834 per kanal. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by this order and seek permission to file an appeal against the impugned order of the High Court.
Mr. Tajamul Hussain, learned counsel for the WAPDA, has contended that no issue was framed in respect of the nature of the land which was involved in this matter. According to the learned counsel, an issue should have been framed by the learned District Judge about. the kind of the land. This aspect of the case was considered by the High Court. It has been rightly pointed out that this question is covered by the issue framed by the High Court which is as under :‑
"Whether the objector is entitled to Rs. 59,800 as cost of land."
Under this issue the parties could lead evidence about the kind of the land which was the subject‑matter of the dispute in the present case. In fact, the parties have led evidence and the Courts below have discussed this point and the High Court has come to the conclusion that the land in dispute is a potential building site.
It is next urged by the learned counsel for the WAPDA that the market price of the land in dispute has been fixed on the basis of the market price of the land in village Ghazi. It will be noticed that the High Court has scrutinized the average market price of the land on the basis of Exh. O. W. 3/1. This average relates to village Ghazi and sales of several types of land have been included therein. The High Court has excluded the sales relating to Bari and Chahi lands as these lands command better value in agriculture. In our opinion, the basis on which the High Court has calculated the market price is in accordance with the principles applicable in such cases. We are satisfied that the High Court has fixed the market price of the land in dispute on sound judicial principles. In any case, the question what is the market price of the land is a question of fact and we see no ground to interfere with the view of the High Court on this point.
Mr. Safdar Hussain, learned counsel for Mst. Hiran, has contended that the High Court should have fixed the market price of the property in dispute at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per kanal. The learned counsel was unable to refer us to any data on the basis of which the market price could be fixed at this figure. As already pointed out, the High Court has taken into consideration the market rate of the land in the adjoining village. This, in our opinion, was the correct method and we do not see any ground to interfere with it.
In the result, we find no force in the petitions. Both of them are 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