Find a Lawyer

Regular First Appeal No.49 of 1974, decided on 24th October, 1987.

---Ss.18 & 50(2)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96--Acquisition of land by Government--Reference by Government to Land Acquisition Judge against award of Collector--On dismissal of said reference Government joining with itself Chairman and General Manager WAPDA as appellants--Effect--Such persons, held, were not authorized by any provision of Land Acquisition Act to prefer appeal, rather they were forbidden under S.50(2) of the Act to demand a reference under S.18--Such officials had no right to file appeal against finding of Land Acquisition Judge.

Pir Khan v . Military ;Estate Officer P L D 1987 S C 485 rel.

---S.23--Compensation--Evaluation of land--Land shown in Khasra Girdawari as "Ghair Mumkin Raita", treated as "Banjar" land by Collector for purpose of compensation--Validity of--Where land once under river, ceased to be under water and there was growth of shrubs over the same, such land, held, was to be treated as "Banjar Qadeem" and not as "Ghair Mumkin R a"--Action of Collector treating such land as Banjar, being in accord with instruction of Revenue Department was unexceptionable.

--S.23--Acquisition of land--Value of land, where no mutation of sale regarding cultivated area was available--Value of land, could not be ascertained on basis of five years average price, where no mutation of sale regarding exclusively cultivated area, held, was found to have been attested.

---S.23--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96--Appeal against acquisition award--Where Collector and Acquisition Judge had given sound reasons justifying award of compensation, and rates mentioned in such award were modest and not on high side, High Court refused interference therewith in appeal.

Tariq Mahmood nazi and M.M. Saeed Beg for Appellant.

Iqbal Mahmood Awan for Respondents Nos.1, 84, 222 and 390.

Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 'to 83, 85 to 221, 223 to 389 and 391 to 776.

Date of hearing: 24th October, 1987.

--This appeal by the Government of the Punjab, Chairman, WAPDA and the General Manager, Constructions (North), against the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Land Acquisition Judge, Mianwali, dated the 13th May, 1974, dismissing the reference made at the instance of the Government of the Punjab for slashing down the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for compulsory acquisition of the respondents land measuring 7,224 acres 3 kanals 6 marlas situate in the area of village Kundal Kacha, tehsil Isa Khel, district Mianwali, arises out of the following circumstances. The Provincial Government acquired the land in dispute for WAPDA for the purpose of construction of pond area of the Chashma Barrage. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, indicating the Government's intention to acquire the land, was published on the 18th June, 1965. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the land according to the nature of soil into three categories, namely, sailab, banjar and ghair mumkin. He worked out the value of sailab kind of land at the rate .of Rs.75 per kanal, of banjar land at the rate of Rs.56 per kanal and ghair mumkin, land at the rate of Rs.28 per kanal. He assessed cost of built up property (ghair mumkin abadi) at the rate of Rs.400 per kanal. The total amount of compensation, after addition of 15 per cent compulsory acquisition charges, came to Rs.34,53,817.23.

2. The Provincial Government having not accepted the award referred the matter to the Court for getting the amount of compensation reduced. It objected to the Land Acquisition Collector's action in treating the land, which had been recorded in the khasra girdawari register, as ghair mumkin raita, as banjar for calculating its value. It felt that the quantum of compensation was on the high side. However, the learned Land Acquisition Judge was not favourably impressed by the reference and dismissed it. .

3. While preferring appeal against the decision of the learned Land Acquisition Judge the Government joined with itself the Chairman, WAPDA and the General Manager, Constructions (North), as appellants. The Chairman and the General Manager are not authorised by any existing provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, rather they are forbidden under section 50(2), to demand a reference under section 18 of the Act for reduction of the amount of compensation. They have no right to file appeal against the decision of the learned Land Acquisition Judge. This proposition is confirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer P L D 1987 S C, 485.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Land Acquisition Collector ought to have accepted the land shown in the Khasra girdawari register as ghair mumkin raita to be ghair mumkin and evaluated as such instead of reckoning its value as banjar land. The contention finds complete answer from the detailed explanation given by the Collector in the award. The land, once under river, ceased to be under water and there was growth or shrubs over it. Such land the revenue staff ought to have describes in the Khasra girdawari register as banjar qadeem and not ghair mumkin raita. On the representation of the land owners the Collector made an inquiry through the Naib-Tehsildar, who after visiting the spot, reported that 'there was a nominal area containing sand and that almost entire area which had been shown as ghair mumkin raita bore grass, kana, etc.' Therefore, according to the instructions issues by the Revenue Department such land was rightly treated as banjar and evaluated as such. It cannot be described as ghair mumkin because it was not impossible to make it amenable to cultivation; as a matter of fact shrub growth was already there. The action of the Land Acquisition Collector taking it to be banjar is unexceptionable.

5. The argument of the learned counsel that the Collector ought to have ascertained the value of the land on the basis of five years average price is not tenable because, as noticed by the Collector, no mutation of sale regarding exclusively cultivated area was found to have been attested rather mutations pertaining to the sale of mostly unculturable area were sanctioned. It may be mentioned that the District Collector had supplied the following rates for evaluation purpose:-

The rates awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector are in promixity with those of the District Collector.

6. Prior to the current settlement village Kundal Kacha, wherein the land in dispute lies, was part of village Kundal Pacca. In 1926 village Kundal Kacha was carved out of village Kundal Pacca for administrative convenience. Earlier the land of Kundal Pacca had been evaluated at the same rates at which the value of the land in dispute was estimated by the Collector. The Land Acquisition Collector could by no means be said to have been generous towards the land owners at the expense of the Government. The Land Acquisition Collector as also the learned Land Acquisition Judge have given sound reasons justifying the award of compensation at the rates mentioned above which rates are in every respect modest and certainly not on the high side. We do not find any justification for interference with the impugned judgment. This appeal is dismissed with costs.

A.A./G-98/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.