1986 PLP 593 (CLC)

West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act (VII of 1956)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.6‑‑Requisitioning of property‑‑Market value of land‑‑Assessment‑ No evidence about market value of land was produced on record by parties with reference to year when building was admittedly constructed on such land‑‑Local Commissions appointed to assess market value of land also differed with each other on question of market value‑‑District Judge, making assessment of value of land on basis of his own experience and knowledge and keeping in view situation and locality of land‑‑High Court upheld assessment of District Judge in circumstances. Sh. Zahoorul Haque for Appellant. M.M. Saeed Beg for Respondents. This order proposes to dispose of two appeals bearing F.A.0. No.207 of 1984 Sh. Muhammad Shafi v. Province of Punjab etc. and F.A.0. No.58 of 1985 Province of Punjab etc. v. Sh. Muhammad Shafi as in both these appeals the judgment, dated 3‑9‑1984 of the learned District Judge passed under section 6 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Power) Act, 1956 has been assailed.

2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the Provincial Government requisitioned a portion of the property where Qadria Primary Girls School is being run and determined its compensation at Rs.400 per mensem. Sh. Muhammad Shafi one of the owners of the property being dissatisfied with the said determination approached the learned District Judge/Authority under section 6 of the aforesaid Act of determination of the fair compensation claiming a sum of Rs.2,400 per mensem as compensation. The learned District Judge, Lahore after obtaining reports of the local commissions, vide the impugned judgment dated 3‑9‑1984 held that Rs.11,220 per annum or Rs.935 per mensem would be the fair compensation for the property requisitioned. Both the parties feeling aggrieved of the said determination have filed these appeals under section 6(3) of the aforesaid Act. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the determination of the fair. compensation is to be made under section 6(b)(iii) of the said Act and that the learned District Judge has made the determination under the said provision of law. The grievance of Sh. Muhammad Shafi is that five Marlas of land underneath the building should have been assessed at the rate of Rs.2 lacs per Marla whereas the grievance of the Province of the Punjabis that the land should not have been valued at Rs.80,000 as was done by the learned District Judge since the said assessment is based on the personal view of the learned District Judge.

3. I have gone through the impugned judgment and have also been referred to the record which is available with the learned counsel for Sh. Muhammad Shafi appellant. It is apparent from this record that no evidence about the market value of the land with reference to the year 1964 when the building was admittedly constructed was produced on the record. The local commissions appointed have also differed on the question of market value of the land in question. In these circumstances the learned District Judge had no option but to make the assessment of the value of the land on the basis of his own experience and knowledge. It is not denied that since 1970 onward the values of the properties in big cities like Lahore have risen many‑fold and in the present case also it is much more than the one assessed by the learned District Judge. The property in question is located in Paisa Akhbar Street which is behind Anarkali Bazar. It is also not disputed that a direct lane proceeds to the property in question from Anarkali Bazar itself. It is common knowledge that even before partition this area formed part of the well‑known commercial locality of Lahore. The value of five Marlas of land assessed at Rs.80,000 is in no way on the higher side. The assessment made by the learned District Judge appears to be correct. In any case nothing has been urged or pointed out to arrive at a different conclusion. The plea of the learned counsel for Sh. Muhammad Shafi that the acquisition itself was illegal cannot be examined in these proceedings. The same is, therefore, repelled being irrelevant. No other point has been urged. Both these appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed in limine. H . B . T . Appeals dismissed.