1990 PLP 923 (MLD)

3. Mr. RiaZ Brohi contended that the Collector had not taken into consideration the private transactions which were entered into by the parties with respect to similar lands in the same area nor had called for the rates at which the lands were sold in those areas from the office of the Sub‑Registrar, hence there was no material before him to come to the conclusion as to what was the market value of the similar lands at the time of the acquisition of this land. Relying upon 11 Calcutta Weekly Notes 877‑Harish Chander Neogy v. Secretary of State and 6 Calcutta Weekly Notes 408 Madhusudan Das v. Collector of Cuttack, he submitted that when there is a reference against the amount of compensation determined under any of the heads on which compensation is payable the Collector has to state his grounds. Instances are not uncommon where the Collector has not given the grounds on which amount of the compensation was determined by him and the legal result of his failure to comply with the provisions of clause (d) is to make it incumbent on the Collector to justify before the Special Judge an award which is a mere brutum fulmen. Where the provisions of this clause had not been complied with and there were no materials from which the High Court could ascertain the footing upon which the compensation had been awarded. The case was remanded for the defect to be remedied. It was further observed in the latter ruling as follows:‑ "I consider that clause a most salutary provision of the law of Land Acquisition, because by requiring the Collector to state in the reference to the Court the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined, it operates as a safeguard against any arbitrary award being made."

4. As against this Mr.Muhammad Anis who appeared for P.S.O relied upon P L D 1986 Karachi 164‑‑Jan Muhammad v. Deputy Commissioner Karachi in which lands in the same deh Joreji was acquired for Steel Mills and compensation was paid according to the amount at which the land was sold by Government to the Steel Mills. It was held by this Court as follows:‑ "In my view the price of Rs.2.20 per sq.yard at which the Government of Sindh sold their land to Steel Mill in December, 1973 is the best evidence available on record for determining the market value of the lands on 27 6‑1973." He therefore submitted that it cannot be argued that there was no material or evidence before the Collector for holding that the compensation awarded on the lands acquired by the Collector was not sufficient. On the contrary as held in the above case the rate at which the Government sold land to the Steel Mill was the best evidence on the record.

5. The parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on the reference before this Court. On behalf bf P.S.O Z.A. Baluch, an officer of P.S.O was examined. His evidence was adduced in the shape of an affidavit accompanied by the following documents:‑ (1) True copy of registered Sale‑Deed dated 31‑3‑1982 with respect to survey No.304 measuring 30 acres in deh Joreji, Tappo Darsano Channo, District Karachi (East) which has been sold for Rs.12,90,000 i.e. at a rate of Rs.43,000 per acre. (2) Ex.5/2 is true copy of a sale‑deed dated 26‑11‑1979 in which 81 acres 23 ghuntas of land, situated in deh Joreji was sold for a sum of Rs.30,10,700 which were out of Rs.33,820 per acre. (3) Ex.5/3 is a conveyance deed of agricultural land measuring 5 acres and 32 ghuntas in deh Joreji which has been sold on 25‑10‑1978 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000 i.e. at Rs.41,666 per acre. (4) Ex.5/4 is an agreement of sale dated 22‑4‑1978 by which 23 acres and 10 ghuntas in deh Joreji was agreed to be sold for Rs.6,97,500 i.e. Rs.30,000 per acre. (5) Ex.5/5 is an extract from the Record of Rights and registration of mutation deh Form VII of deh Joreji, the entry is No.991 dated 6‑11‑1978 according to which 7 acres and 9 ghuntas of an agricultural land was sold for a sum of Rs.2,90,000 on 28‑9‑1978 i.e. Rs.40,000 per acre. (6) Ex.5/6 Conveyance Deed of an agricultural land measuring 7 acres and 9 ghuntas in deh Joreji which was sold at the rate of Rs.40,000 per acre on 28‑10‑1978. (7) Ex.5/7 is the true copy of judgment in Ref. Nos.1 of 1978 of this Court in which compensation was allowed for agricultural land in deh Joreji at the rate Rs.6 per sq.yd. for the land acquired by Notification dated 6‑10‑1974 and Rs.7 per acre for the land acquired on 22‑3‑1974 and 26‑4‑1975. Mr. Muhammad Anis, Advocate has contended that looking to the evidence thus adduced by PSO for whose benefit this land had been acquired the compensation of Rs. 15 per sq.yd. is reasonable compensation and the same does not call for any enhancement.

7. Mr. Riaz Brohi submitted that at the time of assessing compensation the Count has to take a liberal view. Hence the compensation should be enhanced in this case because it is admitted by the witness of PSO in his cross‑examination that the land is situated on the side of National Highway. It is also admitted by the witness that this land is only 10/12 miles from the place where the building of this Court is situated. Around this land there is a land acquired by Port Bin Qasim and opposite this land Steel Mill is situated. About 20 years back Telephone and Telegraph Department had also constructed a Wireiess Station there. It is also admitted that Survey No. 304 which is a sikni land, is adjacent to the land of the claimant. It is further admitted that a number of Housing Societies have affixed their Boards around the land in question. He further submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that Government charges nominal price for the land that it sells to institutions of such type. Hence it is not correct to say that such rate was best evidence of market rate.

8. The contention of Mr. Riaz Brohi appears to be weighty. Looking to the above admissions made by the witness it appears that the land acquired during these proceedings is in the midst of the lands which have been converted into sikni/residential lands. The land is situated by the side of National Highway. Hence it has got valuable potential. Sikni lands in deh Joreji were granted compsenation at a higher rate by the Collector i.e. Rs. 30 per sq.yd.

9. Keeping in view all these facts I enhance the rate of compensation of this land from Rs. 15 to Rs. 20 per sq.yd. The compensation payable to the claimant with regard to the land acquired under this award shall be calculated at the above rate, in addition. The Collector had included the statutary allowance for compulsory acquisition in the rate of compensation awarded to the claimants which he could not legally do. This allowance is to be awarded separately and in addition to the compensation awarded by the Collector. Hence I direct that in addition to the above rate, 25% statutory allowance shall also be payable to the claimants on the market value determined at the above rate. Interest at 6% per annum will also be paid on the compensation amount from the date when possession was taken over from the claimants till the payment of the amount is made. The interest will not be calculated on the amount which had already been paid but will be calculated on the difference of the amount. H.B.T./H-189/K Order accordingly.