Find a Lawyer

Regular First Appeal No.67 of 1974, decided on 10th February, 1987.

---Ss.4 & 23--Civil Procedure Code (V .of 1908), S.96--Assessment of compensation for acquired land--Assessment related to mixed categories of land--Mode of assessment--No sale transaction of purely Ghair Mumkin land prior to institution of acquisition proceedings available, resulting in non-availability of average price--Land Acquisition Collector's inspection at spot and assessment of value according to its potentialities and income--Formula of twenty years of income for determining market value adopted by Land Acquisition Collector and confirmed by Land Acquisition Judge was reasonable especially in absence of evidence to the contrary by department--Finding of assessment of compensation for acquired land as determined by Collector and confirmed by Land Acquisition Judge was upheld by High Court in appeal in circumstances.

Ashtar Ausaf Ali for Appellants.

Muhammad Iqbal and Kh. Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 10^th February, 1987.

Land measuring 2803 Acres and 4 kanals situated in village Attock Paniala Kacha, Tehsil and District Mianwali was acquired by the Water and Power Development Authority through the Provincial Government for Chashma Barrage. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was published on 18-6-1965 while the declaration under section 6 was notified on 29-9-1967. Ultimately, an award was given by the Land Acquisition Collector-II Wapda, Mianwali vide order, dated 29-1-1970. He awarded the compensation for land as follows:-

Wapda disputed the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and, therefore, made a reference under section 18 of the said Act. The reference was decided by the learned Land Acquisition Judge vide judgment, dated 23-4-1974. He agreed with the Land Acquisition Collector and confirmed his award and consequently dismissed the reference petition. This appeal has Lien filed against the said decisions. The record has been perused. Arguments have been heard.

2. As many as 8 issues including the one relating to the relief were framed. Six of the issues related to preliminary objections but the same were decided ire favour of the appellant and the decision thereon not disputed by the opposite party. The only issue before us, therefore, relates to the determination of the value of the property in dispute. The appellant has challenged the price of only the land mentioned at No.l in the foregoing paragraph. The valuation of land etc. given at No.2 to 7 is not disputed. The land mentioned at No.l. above consists of two kinds. Ghair Mumkin Darya and Ghair Mumkin Jhal. The value of the same has been assessed jointly by the Land' Acquisition Collector. The value of the first kind, i.e. Ghair Mumkir. Darya was proposed by the Collector of the District at Sqs.20 per kanal and that was accepted by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, the value of the land falling under the category of Ghair Mumkin Jhal was proposed at Rs.25 per kanal by the District Collector while the Land Acquisition Collector assessed it at Rs.6 per kanal. Therefore, the dispute relates only to the assessment of the value of the land falling under the category of Ghair Mumkin Jhal. The land Acquisition Collector has in the award made it clear that prior to the issuance of the notification under section 4 ibid only one mutation of sale had been attested on 13-6-1965. In that transaction 300 kanals and 9 marlas of land was sold for Rs.9,000. He has rightly observed that this transaction also related to mixed kinds /categories of land. It was not a sale of Ghair Mumkin Jhal category. There is no dispute that there has never been any sale of purely Ghair Mumkin land prior to the institution of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the average price could not be available. The said transaction and that too of mixed classification could not be made the basis of the assessment. The Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, inspected the spot and assessed the value according to its potentialities and income. He adopted the formula of 20 years income for determining the market value. The other aspect taken into consideration was that the District Collector himself had suggested the price of Ghair Mumkin Darya land at Rs.2. This kind of land was useless while Ghair Mumkin Jhal land is a useful land and yields income. The District Collector has suggested the price of this useful land at Rs.25 -per kanal. The Land Acquisition Collector was right in saying that the difference between useless and useful land could not be Rs.5 per kanal. Therefore, he assessed the market value of Ghair Mumkin Jhal land at Rs.60 per kanal on the basis of the potentialities of the land and on the basis of the income which the same could yield at the time of acquisition. The test supplied by him, therefore, was very reasonable. The same test and reasons were taken into consideration by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and there is no reason to differ with them especially when the appellant produced absolutely no evidence even to show that the price of such land could be lesser than Rs.60 per kanal. Therefore, we uphold the price of Rs.60 per kanal as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and as confirmed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. It may be pointed out that the value of Rs. 35 per Kanal i.e. Rs. 280 per nacre has been arrived at collectively for Ghair Mumkin Darya and Ghair Mumkin Jhal land taking into consideration the proportion of each kind of land. Their findings are, therefore, confirmed. The appeal is dismissed with no order as

to costs.

A. A. /P-8/L 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.