MLD 2018

2018 PLP 567 (MLD)

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and another — Appellants Versus KHANA GUL and 6 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2017-September-28
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2018 PLP 567 (MLD)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and another — Appellants Versus KHANA GUL and 6 others — Respondents
Primary Law Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 567 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 567 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 567 (MLD) (LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and another — Appellants Versus KHANA GUL and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)

Representation

  • Aftab Ahmad Durani for Petitioner.
  • Ahmad Ali Khan and Gohar Zeb for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 23 & 34

Execution proceedings

Compulsory acquisition

Compound interest on compensation for compulsory acquisition

Scope

Executing court dismissed application of Judgment-debtors to permit them to submit amended goshwara as they had inadvertently added 6 percent compound interest in their earlier goshwara

Judgment debtors contended that no compound interest could be paid on the compulsory acquisition charges

Decree-holders contended that judgment debtors could not evade their own commitment

Validity

Record revealed that during execution proceedings the judgment debtors submitted goshwara and agreed to pay certain amount to the decree holders as decretal amount which amount was deposited by them in the Court, thus, the decree had already been satisfied but appeal had been filed only for academic purpose which could not be entertained by the executing court

Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stipulated that Land Acquisition Collector was to allow compound interest on the compulsory acquisition charges

Compound interest at the rate specified by the statue on the subject was payable by the Collector or be awarded by Referee Court on the amount of compensation in excess of amount determined by the Collector

Such interest was to be paid retrospectively with effect from the date the possession of the land was taken over by the Collector and till such time that the excess amount was deposited in the Court

Payment of compulsory acquisition charges was not an excess amount, rather it was part of the market value of the land under acquisition

Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 empowered the Referee Court to award a sum at the rate of 15% to the land owner on account of compulsorily depriving the owner from his land

Impugned order of the Executing Court, was well reasoned and in accordance with law, hence not open to any interference by the High court

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants -judgment debtors against the order of the learned Executing Court dated 07.12.2016, whereby their application with regard to submission of amended Goshawara and satisfaction of the decree in light thereof, has been turned down.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-judgment debtors contended that no compound interest could be paid on the compulsory acquisition charges; that the appellants-judgment debtors while submitting Goshawara before the learned Executing Court for execution of the decree in light thereof, inadvertently added 6 percent compound interest on the compulsory acquisition charges, hence, an application in this regard to amended the Goshawara was submitted, but the same was turned down by the learned Executing Court haphazardly and in a slipshod manner, hence, the same is liable to be reversed.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents-decree holders contended that the matter of outstanding decretal amount was settled between the parties before the learned Executing Court on the ground that the decree holders agreed upon the schedule of payment furnished by them bearing their endorsement and no objection as well, hence, they cannot evade from their own commitment. He referred to a receipt of Nazir of the Court wherein the entire outstanding decretal amount has been deposited in the Court and in this way the decree has been satisfied.

4. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it appears from the record that during execution proceedings the appellants judgment debtors submitted Goshawara and agreed to pay Rs.9796920/- to the decree holders as decretal amount. The aforesaid amount was deposited by them in the Court, as is manifest from receipt of Nazir of the Court. In this view of the matter, the decree has already been satisfied but eventually this appeal has been filed only for academic purpose which cannot be entertained. So far as the grievance of the judgment debtors about payment of 6% compound interest on the compulsory acquisition charges is concerned, section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, mandates the Land Acquisition Collector to pay compound interest on the compulsory acquisition charges. Compound interest at the rate specified by the Statute on the subject is payable by the Collector or may be awarded by the Referee Court on the amount of compensation in excess of amount determined by the Collector. Such interest is to be paid retrospectively with effect from the date the possession of the land is taken over by the Collector and till such time that the excess amount was deposited in the Court. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that interest is not payable on the amount of compulsory acquisition charges is misconceived. The payment of compulsory acquisition charges is not an excess amount, rather it is part of the market value of the land under acquisition. Section 23 of the Act ibid, empowers the Referee Court to award a sum at the rate of 15% to the land owner on account of compulsorily depriving him from his land.

5. For what has been discussed above, the impugned order of the learned Executing Court, is well reasoned and in accordance with law, hence, not open to any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. MQ/310/P Appeal dismissed.