Find a Lawyer

Regular First Appeal No.61 of 1967, decided on 1st November, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 4, 11 & 18‑‑Acquisition of land‑‑Compensation‑‑Determination of‑‑For purposes of awarding compensation of acquired land, value of such land at time of its acquisition, is to be taken into account‑‑Sale price of such land prevalent in previous years would not furnish good criterion for determination of compensation‑‑Compensation of disputed acquired land adjudged by Collector or Trial Court relying upon sales in same area a year or two prior to disputed acquisition was modified and enhanced by High Court in appellate jurisdiction.

Fraser v. City for Fraserville L R (1917) A C 194 and R. B. Lala Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State A I R 1925 P C 91 ref.

Muhammad Ghias and Munawar Akhtar for Appellants.

S. Muhammad Shafi for Respondent No.l.

Syed Iftikhar Ahmad for Respondent No. 2.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 to 42.

Date of hearing: 1st November, 1986.

This appeal and regular first appeals Nos.66 and 99 of 1967, which involve identical question for determination are proposed to be disposed of by this judgment. The Provincial Government of erstwhile Province of West Pakistan acquired in 1964; 271 Acres 6 Kanals of the agricultural land in dispute belonging to 179 land‑owners in the area of Chak No. 203/K.B., situate in the environs of Lyallpur City (now Faisalabad), under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of the steam power station and research laboratory by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, indicating intention of the Government to acquire the land was published in the official Gazette on the 22nd May, 1964. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award of the 12th July, 1964, awarded compensation for compulsory acquisition of the land to the land owners at the rate of Rs.10,000 per Acre plus 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges. As WAPDA had not taken over possession of the land no interest was ordered to be paid on the amount of compensation.,

2. The land‑owners and likewise the Provincial Government did not accept the award re‑amount of compensation and moved applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Collector for referring the matter to the Court for determination of compensation, the land‑owners asking for its enhancement and the Government for its slashing down. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), by his judgment of the 24th April, 1967, giving rise to the present appeals, accepted the petition of the Provincial Government and reduced the compensation payable to the land‑owners from Rs.10,000 to Rs.8,000 per Acre. He dismissed the land‑owners' applications demanding increase in compensation. Feeling aggrieved the land‑owners have approached this Court through the present appeals.

3. Referring to the observation of the Land Acquisition Collector appearing in the award "that the land in question adjoins urban area and lies in close proximity of industrial area where a number of textile mills and other factories including some of the biggest industrial concerns such as Nishat Textile Mills, Crescent Sugar Mills, Punjab Industries, Vegetable Ghee Mills, Koh‑i‑Noor Industries, Nishatabad Grid Station are located and which is fast developing and as such its potential value as building site cannot be ignored", the learned counsel for the appellants contended that it was not an ordinary piece of argicultural land but was so nicely situate near the urban and industrial area that it had the potential of being urbanized very soon and of fetching quite substantial price much higher than the amount of compensation adjudged by the Collector or the learned trial Court. He drew attention to the Land Acquisition Collector's preliminary estimate of 75 per cent of the value of the land at the rate of Rs.8,000 per Acre which he intimated to the department. Admittedly the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad), had given the average sale price of the land in Chak No. 203/R.B. to be Rs.13,500 per Acre which amount the Land Acquisition Collector considered as "authentic and reliable". The Land Acquisition Collector mainly banked upon the average sale price which he worked out on the basis of sales of land in Chak No.203/R.B. which took place in the year 1962 and 1963 to fix the amount of compensation. The learned trial Court, while formulating its decision, took into consideration the prices mentioned in some of the selected mutations of sales which were sanctioned during the year before issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The average price on the basis of the figures of these mutations turned out to be much less than Rs.8,000 per Acre which WAPDA was prepared to pay before the initiation of acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the learned Court determined compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000 per Acre.

4. The Land Acquisition Collector and the learned trial Court worked under the impression that the land lay at some distance from the main Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) ‑Sheikhupura Road. However, a simple glance on the plan EXh.P.2, indicates that one square of the land in dispute, which is a solid block, abuts the main road. All along the other side of the land runs Rakh Branch Canal. A piece of two Kanals of Land Out of Kills. No.4 of Square No.41, which is at a distance of about a Kills. from the canal, was sold for Rs.6,000, that is to say, at the rate of Rs.24,000 per Acre, on or before the 4th October, 1963, when there was no sign of compulsory acquisition. The mutation of sale

bearing No.450 (copy Exh.P.4) as entered on the 4th October, 1963, and sanctioned on the 1st April, 1964. It means that the land in dispute was already fetching quite a good amount of price even before the Government made up its mind to acquire it.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants made grievance of the fact that the principle upon which valuation of property compulsorily acquired should be measured, as laid down by the House of Lords in Fraser v. City of Fraserville L R (1917) A C 194 and riterated by the Privy Council especially in R.B. Lala Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State A I R 1925 P C 91, that it' is the value to the seller of the property in its actual condition at the time of expropriation with all its existing advantages and with all its possibilities excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property is compulsorily acquired, was not followed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned trial Court while ascertaining the amount of compenstion. He maintained that it was the value of the land at the time of its acquisition which ought to have been taken into account and that sale price prevalent in the previous years did not furnish good criterion for the determination of compensation. The learned trial Court and the Land Acquisition Collector no doubt were influenced more by the prices of sales which had taken place a year or two before the acquisition. They did not give due importance to the location of the land and to the fact that in October, 1963, a chunk of the land in dispute was sold at the rate of Rs.24,000 per Acre. As observed by the Land Acquisition Officer, and this fact is not denied by either party, the area where the land was situate was in the process of fast development and, therefore, it can be legitimately inferred that the price of the land was higher at the time of its acquisition than a year or two before which formed basis of the award. The Deputy Commissioner and Collector of Lyallpur district (now Faisalabad), who reported the average price of Rs.13,500 per Acre, was a disinterested officer and his estimate is not shown in any manner to be biased or incorrect. As a matter of fact the learned counsel for the Provincial Government appearing before this Court conceded that the value of the land for purpose of awarding compensation may be taken as Rs.13, 000 per Acre. This amount has been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellants who does not press for anything more. The learned counsel representing WAPDA, mainly relying on the prices mentioned in the mutations of sales which the learned Court used to determine the value of the land, made submissions in support of the judgment under appeal, but these prices, as found above, do not constitute good guide for proper determination of the amount of compensation. Consequently, the amount of compensation to be awarded to the land‑owners is fixed at Rs.13,000 per Acre plus 15 per cent thereof, in consideration of compusorily nature of acquisition.

6. In view of the above, the appeals are accepted, the judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court are modified to the extent that the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants is enhanced from Rs.8,000 to Rs.13,000 per Acre plus 15 per cent on the increased amount in lieu of compulsorily acquisition. The parties are left to bee their own costs.

H.B.T./607/L Appeal accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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