Find a Lawyer

Regular First Appeal No. 21 of 1971, decided on 8th November, 1986.

‑‑Ss 4 6 & 18‑‑Land acquired for small industrial estate‑ Compensation‑‑Assessment of‑‑Appellant (Government) contesting award of compensation by Land Acquisition Collector as being excessive and producing statement of average price of land in support thereof‑‑Owners of land in rebuttal, placing on record copies of various mutations sanctioned on basis of registered sale‑deeds‑‑Finding of lower Court that evidence adduced by parties was of no help, held, was not correct‑ Average price calculated on basis of mutations produced by owners‑ Government in preparing statement coming to much more than that assessed by lower Court‑‑Average price worked out in statement produced by appellant, held, could not be accepted in circumstances‑‑Finding of lower Court upheld.

‑‑‑S. 18‑‑Houses standing on land at time of its acquisition‑‑Assessment of compensation‑‑Appellant (Government) not adducing any evidence to enable Court to assess value of such houses different from one fixed by Collector‑‑Relevant issue, held, was rightly decided by lower Court against appellant.

‑‑‑S. 18‑‑Compensation, assessment of‑‑Abandoned tube‑well and other wells in land subject of acquisition‑‑Compensation for such wells assessed by Land Acquisition Collector after obtaining opinion of Agricultural Engineer‑‑Appellant (Government) not adducing any evidence to rebut opinion of said Engineer‑‑Assessment of compensation, held, was proper and adequate.

Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah for Appellant.

Ch. Aziz Ahmad and Muhammad Yousaf Javaid for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th November, 1986.

.‑‑ This regular first appeal arise out of the judgment, dated 9‑2‑1971 by which the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on behalf of Province of West Pakistan was dismissed by learned. Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot.

2. Facts necessary for decision of this appeal are that the West Pakistan Small Industries Corporation was desirous of establishing a Small Industries Estate at public expense at Sialkot for which purpose an area of about 126 Acres of land was required. In pursuance of a request made in this behalf vide certificate EXh.P.l and letter Exh.P.2, the Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore issued a notification Exh . P . 3 under section 4 on 7‑11‑1961 which was published in the Gazette on 10‑11‑1961. Thereafter, another notification Exh.P.4 under section 6 was issued on 9‑1‑1962. In pursuance of the above‑mentioned two notifications, the possession of 111 Acres 8 Kanals of land out of the land mentioned in these notifications was taken by the Small Industries Corporation under section 17(4), Land Acquisition Act, after depositing ‑a sum of Rs.10,00,000 on 6‑4‑1962 and another sum of Rs.5,20,208 on 6‑7‑1962 as an approximate price of land towards acquisition which was to be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The required land was located in two villages i.e. Hajipura and Fateh Garh. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award, dated 23‑7‑1963 Exh.P.7 assessed compensation at the rate of Rs.200 per Maria for the land in revenue estate of Hajipura situate within the Municipal limits of Sialkot; Rs.175 per Marla for the land in revenue estate of Hajipura situated outside the Municipal limits of Sialkot and Rs.50 per Marla for the land in revenue estate of Fateh Garh. At this moment, we are not concerned with the land of Fateh Garh. The learned Senior Civil Judge vide impugned judgment decided the reference regarding the revenue estate of Hajipura only. Feeling aggrieved by the award, dated 23‑7‑1963, the Province of West Pakistan filed a petition under section 18(3), Land Acquisition Act which was referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot for determination. The following issues were framed:‑----

(1) What was the market value of the land in dispute at the time of its acquisition O. Parties.

(2) Whether the applications filed by Muhammad Ali and others are barred by time O.P. (Onus objected to).

(3) Whether the value of the structures on the acquired land has not been correctly determined by the Land Acquisition Collector O. P.

(4) Whether the interest has been illegally awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to the respondents O.P.

(5) Whether the Land Acquisition Collector has not correctly awarded the compensation for the abandonment of the tube‑wells and wells installed on the land acquired O.P.

Relief.

Issues Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were found against the Government as a "exult of which the reference was dismissed on 9‑2‑1971 leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

3. In support of this appeal learned counsel for the appellant extended firstly that after coming to the conclusion that the evidence furnished on behalf of the parties was inconclusive, the learned trial judge should not have dismissed the reference; secondly that the average ice stated in Exh.P.W.4/1 clearly established that the average price of the land in question in village Hajipura was Rs.107 per Marla; thirdly that the value of the structures on the acquired land was assessed at higher rates and finally that the Land Acquisition Collector wrongly assessed compensation for the abandoned tube‑well and wells at higher rates.

4. We have considered these contentions keeping in view the documentary evidence placed on record by the parties.

The appellant Province of West Pakistan tendered in evidence Notification under section 4, dated 7‑11‑1961 (Exh.P.3), Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 9‑1‑1962 (Exh.P.4), copy of Jamabandi for the year 1961‑62 pertaining to village Hajipura (Exh.P.6), copy of impugned award, dated 23‑7‑1963 (Exh.P.7) alongwith statement (Exh.P.7/1) showing that the land measuring 6 Acres and 3 Marlas of village Hajipura was within Municipal limits Sialkot, statement (Exh.P.7/2) showing that land measuring 61 Acres 1 Kanal and 12 Marlas in village Hajipura was outside Municipal limits, statement (Exh.P.7/4) showing a total sum of Rs.18,540 as compensation assessed for five houses present in the acquired land and statement (Exh.P.7/5) showing the amount of interest paid to the owners at the rate of 6 per cent. The appellant also produced statement of average price (Exh.P.W.4/1) to support the contention that the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was excessive. It will be observed from above details that out of various documents relied upon by the appellant only the average price statement (Exh.P.W.4/1) is relevant for purposes of the decision of the question involved in this appeal.

In rebuttal the owners placed on record copy of Mutation No. 3915, dated 2‑1‑1962 (Exh.D.l) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 31‑5‑1961 regarding sale of 10 Marlas for Rs.2,200, Mutation No. 3924, dated 20‑12‑1961 (Exh. D.2) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 6‑9‑1961 regarding sale of 8 Marlas of land for Rs.3,500, Mutation No. 3925, dated 20‑12‑1961 (Exh.D.3) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 15‑2‑1961 regarding sale of 10 Marlas of land for Rs.3,500, Mutation No. 3934, dated 12‑1‑1962 (Exh.D.5) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 9‑1‑1961 regarding sale of 1 Kanal for Rs.4,700, Mutation No. 3845, dated 29‑4‑1961 (Exh. D. 6) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 8‑2‑1961 regarding sale of 10 Marlas for Rs.3,400, Mutation No. 3861, dated 17‑5‑1961 (Exh.D.7) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 27‑3‑1961 regarding sale of one Kanal for Rs.9,000, Mutation No. 3862, dated 17‑5‑1961 (Exh.D.8) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 8‑4‑1961 regarding sale of 19 Marlas for Rs.8,000, Mutation No. 3866, dated 7‑5‑1961 (Exh. D.9) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 11‑12‑1958 regarding sale of 4 Marlas for Rs.1,180, Mutation No. 3892, dated 25‑10‑1961 (Exh.P.10) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 28‑6‑1961 regarding sale of 19 Marlas for Rs.3,800 and Mutation No. 3883, dated 15‑9‑1961 (Exh. D.11) sanctioned on the basis of registered sale‑deed, dated 2‑6‑1961 regarding sale of 1 Kanal for Rs.11,000.

The other documents, relied upon by the parties were either not relevant or pertained to village Fatehgarh, need not be discussed because this appeal relates to the award regarding village Hajipura only.

5. A perusal of the above documentary evidence would show that the finding of the lower Court that the evidence adduced by the parties was of no help, was not correct. It could also not be said that in fact the parties did not produce any cogent evidence to support their respective claims.

The average price worked out in the statement (Exh.P.W.4/1) is based on five mutations. Out of these Mutation No. 3906 was sanctioned on 16‑11‑1961. This being later in date to the Notification, dated 7‑11‑1961 under section 4 and section 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act, cannot be taken into consideration. The average price, by taking in consideration the remaining four mutations, comes to about Rs.103 per Maria. We find ourselves unable to accept this statement because it was worked out by taking into consideration only a few selective mutations and not all the mutations which were sanctioned before the Notification (Exh.P.3). Those mutations have been given in detail above and were tendered in evidence by the owners as Exhs. D.1 to D.3 and D.5 to D .11. All transactions in these mutations were entered into and completed by registered deeds before Notification, dated 7‑11‑1961. These should have considered to work out average price. We have ourselves calculated the average price keeping in view these ten mutations tendered in evidence by the owners. According to these mutations, a total area of 140 Marlas was sold for Rs.50,280. This would mean that the average sale price per Marla was Rs.359. If the four mutations which were taken into consideration by the appellant to prepare the statement (Exh.P.W.4/1) are also included in these ten mutations, the average price per Marla comes to Rs.306 which is much more than the one assessed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in the impugned judgment. We are clear in our mind that the document (Exh.P.W.4/1) was prepared dishonestly and by not taking into consideration a large number of other mutations sanctioned in village Hajipura. In view of the above discussion, we are not prepared to agree with learned counsel firstly that there was no evidence on record to assess the correct amount of compensation and secondly that the average worked out in the statement (Exh.P.W.4/1) be accepted. The finding under issue No. 1 is accordingly upheld.

The assessment of compensation of the houses was worked out in the statement (Exh.P.7/4). At the time of acquisition there were only five houses in village Hajipura on the acquired land. A total sum of Rs.18,540 was paid as compensation for these houses. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to enable the Court to assess value of these houses different from the one fixed by the Collector. As such, we find that issue No. 3 was rightly decided against the appellant.

The compensation for one abandoned tube‑well and four wells in the land of the estate of Hajipura was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector after obtaining opinion of the Agricultural Engineer, Lyallpur (Faisalabad). The appellant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the opinion of the said Engineer. We have carefully gone through the award and find that the assessment of compensation for these wells was proper and adequate.

6. In view of the above discussion we do not find any merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

S. Q. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.