Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
First Appeal from Order No. 162 of 1984, decided on 22nd November, 1986.
Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act (VII of 1956)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 6‑‑Requisitioning of property‑‑Monthly compensation‑‑Finding of District Judge on issue of compensation based on evidence on record‑ Appellant neither pointing out anything justifying interference with said finding nor finding fault therein on other issues framed in case‑ Interference declined by High Court.
Khalil Ramdey, Addl. A.‑G. for Appellant.
Muhammad Ramzan Khokhar for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1986.
This appeal is directed against an award given by the Distinct Judge, Lahore, as an arbitrator appointed under section 6 of the Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Properties (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956. By that award, he fixed compensation of a building at the rate of Rs.1,334 per mensem.
2. Building in dispute was requisitioned by the Provincial Government on 10th August, 1977 by allowing rent at the rate of Rs.225 per mensem, to the respondent, Hap Wall Muhammad, who is owner of the said building. He claimed compensation at the rate of not less than Rs.4,000 stating that the building was of the value of Rs.10 lacs. Respondent produced two witnesses in support of his case while the appellants Government of the Punjab and another examined only one witness in defence. Learned District Judge also appointed a local Commissioner to assess compensation of the building in dispute.
3. Area of land under the building in dispute as worked out by the local Commissioner is 17.56 Marlas. According to him, value of the said land was Rs.18,500 per Marla. It was reported by the Local Commissioner that the building was constructed at the cost of Rs.99,670, in 1962.
4. Appearing as his own witness, it was stated by the respondent that he purchased the building in incomplete shape, in 1962 for Rs.1,00,000 but its price mentioned in the sale‑deed was Rs.60,000. It was alleged by him that he completed the building by spending Rs.1,00,000 more. According to him, value of the land under the building was Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000 per Marla. Muhammad Sharif, who was examined by the respondent as his witness, said that value of the land under the building in question was Rs.25,000 per Marla. The appellants examined Ijaz Ahmad only in rebuttal. He said that value of the land was Rs.12,000 per Marla but he did not produce any document in support of his averment.
5. It was held by the learned District Judge that the respondent purchased the building in dispute for Rs.60,000 and spent Rs.l lac to complete it. Thus, he fixed the value of the disputed property at Rs.1,60,000 and allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.10% of the initial cost of construction, namely, Rs.1,60,000. Thus, monthly compensation as determined by the learned District Judge was Rs.1,334.
6. Finding of the learned District Judge on the issue of compensation. is based on the evidence on record and learned counsel for the appellants did not point out anything justifying interference with his finding. He also did not find fault with findings of the learned District Judge on other issues framed in the case. I, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss it with costs.
M. Y. H. /690/L Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer