2009 PLP 2263 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.

Chairman WAPDA and others have filed this regular first appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,. 1894, against the judgment and decree dated 12-3-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, D.I. Khan/Judge Land Acquisition, whereby reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the expropriated land owners respondents was accepted and the price of their acquired land through Award No.123 dated 10-6-2004 was enhanced from Rs.1687.48 to Rs.12,000 per Kanal along with 15% compulsory charges and the current rates of the Bank profit of the enhanced amount.

2. Facts of the case are that vide Award No.123 dated 10-6-2004, the Land Acquisition Collector, D.I.Khan had acquired land measuring 55 Kanals 2 Marlas, entered at Khata No.81, 86 and 87, situated in village Malikhi, for the construction of Minor of Distributory No.15 C.R.B.C. Project Phase III, D.I.Khan at the rate of Rs.1687.48 per Kanal. The land owners feeling aggrieved from the compensation so fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector filed reference petition No.2 of 2005 in the Court of Additional District Judge-IV, D.I.Khan/ Judge Land Acquisition, challenging the same on the grounds that they were neither consulted at the time of fixation of price of their acquired land, nor they were otherwise informed and heard in any way and hence they were condemned unheard and that the actual market price of the suit-land was Rs.12,000 per Kanal.

3. The appellants respondents when summoned, contested the suit by filing written statement and from the divergent pleadings of the parties, four issues including the relief were framed. The learned trial Court after recording pro and contra evidence and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, accepted the reference petition and price of the acquired land of the expropriated land owners was enhanced from Rs.1687.48 per Kanal to Rs.12,000 per Kanal, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the entire record of the case.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 27-12-1997, while Notification regarding the impugned Award No.123 was announced on 10-6-2004 on the basis of one year average fixed on sales through mutations executed in the village/Mauza Malikhi prior to the date of Notification under section 4 of the Act ibid and fixed the compensation as Rs.1687/48 per Kanal while the market value has been shown as Rs.12,000 per Kanal, and consequently the suit-land was acquired at the rate of Rs.1687.48 per Kanal, which was not in consonance with the facts of the case. The learned Land Acquisition Collector had overlooked the potential value of the acquired land by fixing its price which was arbitrary despite the fact that in the Award in question, copy Exh.A.W.2/4, the market ' value was shown as Rs.12,000 per Kanal. Thus, it was rightly enhanced by the learned trial Judge to Rs. 12,000 per Kanal along with the requisite charges except the rate of interest i.e. Bank rate, through the impugned judgment, which is based on the correct appraisal of evidence on record.

6. Learned trial Court has granted interest at the Bank rate which is violation of section 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Previously the land owners were entitled to 8% compound interest on' the awarded compensation under section 34 of the Act (ibid) but in the year, 1983 the law was amended and 8% compound interest was converted into six percent simple interest per annum and to this extent only the judgment and decree of Referee Court needs modification.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, perversity, misreading or non-reading of material evidence available on record so as to call for interference by this Court through this appeal. The findings of the Referee Court are based on correct assessment of evidence and material on record and are strictly in consonance with law, justice and equity.

8. Consequently, I find no substance in the" instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed except with the only modification that the expropriated land owners will be entitled to 6% simple interest instead of interest at the Bank rate as adjudged by the trial Court, from the date of possession till the payment of the enhanced compensation. H.B.T./162/P Appeal dismissed.