1984 PLP 1440 (SCMR)

Nishat Sarhad Textile Mills v. Sher Ahmad Khan P L D 1976 S C 5 31 ref. (c) Land Acquisition Act (IX of 1894)‑‑ ‑‑‑5. 18‑‑Acquisition of land‑‑Compensation‑‑Quantum‑‑Determination of market value‑‑Decision as to rate of compensation proceeding on basis of concrete evidence of sales etc.‑‑No legal infirmity pointed out in finding of High Court‑‑Judgment of High Court upheld. ‑‑[Compensa tion]. M. Tariq Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants (in Appeals Nos. 42‑P and 43‑P of 1972). Amirzada Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General for Appellants (in Appeals Nos. 44‑P and 45‑P of 1972). Respondents in Appeals Nos. 42‑P and 43‑P of 1972 (absent). Respondents in Appeals Nos. 44‑P and 45‑P of 1972 (absent). Respondents Nos. 2 and 4: Ex parte.. Date of hearing: 13th November, 1983. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑ These four appeals arise out of the common judgment of a D. B of the Peshawar High Court, dated 4‑1‑1972 and shall, therefore, be disposed of by this judgment. Leave was granted in these appeals by means of common order of this Court dated 16‑12‑1972 to consider the following questions:‑ (i) Whether it was lawful for the High Court to grant compound interest at the rate of 8 % under the provisions of Act III, 1969, which came into force on 15‑3‑1969, long after the notification under which the lands were acquired in these cases and even after the award for compensation was passed. (ii) Whether there was any legal basis for the High Court to increase rate of compensation of Rs.300 per Kanal, in view of the fact that the compensation in case of lands acquired for the agricultural farm was fixed at Rs. 200 per Kanal by the High Court itself. (iii) That there was no legal basis for directing the payment of departmental charges in addition to the compensation

2. These appeals arise out of proceedings taken by the Government initially for the acquisition of about 796 Kanals of land situated in village Nar Hafizabad of Lakhi Tehsil for an agricultural farm vide notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on 12‑5‑1961. It seems subsequently further area was acquired for the purpose of sugar mills to be set up by the W.P.I.D.C and the Government issued another notification published on 7‑12‑1962 acquiring about 942 Kanals of land. The proceedings for assessing the compensation in respect of the lands acquired for the agricultural farm and the sugar mills were separately taken. Consequently, the award in the case of agricultural farm was made on 12‑9‑1961 whereby the Land Acquisition Collector allowed compensation at the rate of Rs.109.06 per Kanal. In the case of land acquired for sugar mills the award was made on 27‑4‑1963 allowing compensation at the rate of Rs.175 per Kanal. The respondents herein who were interested parties whose lands had been acquired, being dissatisfied with the rate of compensation applied to the Land Acquisition Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the Court. The cases were accordingly referred to the District Judge, Derajat, who by his order dated 8‑3‑1966, assessed the value of the lands acquired for the sugar mills at Rs.225 per Kanal. Taking into consideration the fact that the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the agricultural farm was issued about a year and half before the initiation of acquisition proceedings for the sugar mills, the District Judge assessed the market value for the lands acquired for the agricultural farm at Rs.140 per Kanal. No interest, however, was awarded in respect of both categories of land.

3. The respondents still being dissatisfied challenged the decision of the District Judge and filed two appeals (R.F.A. Nos. 14 and 15 of 1966) in the Peshawar High Court claiming compensation for the lands acquired for the purpose of sugar mills at Rs.300 per Kanal and for the lands acquired for the purpose of agricultural farm at the rate of Rs.200 per Kanal. It is pertinent to note that according to the respondents these claims were reduced by 50 %due to their inability to paycourt‑fees. The then Government of West Pakistan also filed two separate appeals (R.F.A. Nos. 17 and 18 of 1966) as cross‑appeals against the decision of the District Judge. All the four appeals were disposed of by a D. B. of the Peshawar High Court as per the impugned judgment, whereby the compensation for the agricultural farm was enhanced to Rs.200 per Kanal and that for sugar mills to Rs.300. Further the court was also pleased to grant interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the West Pakistan (Amendment) Act III of 1969, so as to entitle them to the payment of "compound interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on such excess as is decreed with effect from the date on which possession was taken up the date on payment of excess into Court." In the result, Regular First Appeal No.15/66 was allowed, whereas Regular First Appeal No.14/66, was, however, accepted partially and it was ordered that compensation be paid in respect of the two categories of lands as already stated.

4. The decision of the High Court has been challenged by the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation and the Land Acquisition Collector, Bannu and others by means of these four appeals by special leave.

5. The leading argument in support of these appeals was addressed by Mr.Amirzada Khan, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General N.‑W.F.P. who appeared for the appellants in Civil Appeals No.44‑P and 45‑P/72. Mr. Tariq Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the other two appeals adopted his arguments. 6. the very outset the learned Assistant Advocate‑General very fairly conceded, that the first legal question noticed in the leave granting order, does not require to be considered as this question has since been settled by a pronouncement of this Court in Nishat Sarhad Textile Mills v. Sher Ahmad Khan P L D 1976 S C

531. This point was, therefore, given up and has not been pressed before us. 7. t appears to us that leave was principally granted in these cases in order to examine the aforesaid question of law. There was not much force left in the appeals as a result of the decision of the aforesaid question of law. However, we have heard the learned counsel further. He has invited our attention to paragraphs 8 to 11 of the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court and after going through it, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the question raised with regard to the enhancement of compensation of the sugar mills land. On reading of the judgment, we are satisfied that the learned Judges have carefully considered all the evidence and material placed on record, on the basis of which they have determined the question of the market value of the land and there is no legal infirmity pointed out in their finding. We find that the decision as to the rate of compensation proceeds on the basis of concrete evidence of sales etc. referred to by the learned Judges and we are not inclined to disagree with their finding. So far as the question of different rates as to the land acquired for agricultural farm and the sugar mills is concerned, it has been very fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents had clearly stated that they were limiting their claims to Rs.200 and Rs.300 per Kanal, respectively, in these lands, in view of the fact that they cannot pay the court‑fee. Apparently, therefore, the Courts could not have granted them compensation on identical rates in view of the fact that the claim in respect of lands acquired for the agricultural farm was limited to Rs.200 per Kanal, although on evidence produced higher rate of compensation may have been granted. No other argument was addressed in support of the appeals. 8.For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. S . Q . Appeal dismissed.