1980 PLP 265 (SCMR)

Jan Muhammad Dawood, Advocate with Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Riaz Hashmi, Advocate instructed by Ahmad-ullah Farooqi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents: Riaz Hashmi, Advocate, instructed by Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing ; 16th January, 1980. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal bearing Nos. K‑37, K‑50 and K‑55 of 1978, which involve common questions of law and fact. The petitioners in these cases are owners of land situate in two villages, named Deh Phiai and Deh Dieh in the Karachi district, ‑which was acquired by the Provincial Government for the establishment of the Korangi Township. 1n the ease of the first named village the relevant notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on the 17th of September, 1960 and the 18th of October, 1960. By the Collector's award made on 18‑7‑1961, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.3,500 per acre, besides 15 % statutory allowance and interest at the rate of 6 % per annum as admissible under the law. Petitioners felt dissatisfied with this rate of compensation, and filed a reference under section 18 of the Act, which was decided by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan by his judgment dated the 9th of May, 1969, and the rate of compensation was enhanced from Rs. 3,500 per acre to Rs. 5,000 per acre. The land owners were still not satisfied and, accordingly, they filed an appeal under the Letters Patent. The learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench have, by their judgment dated the 26th of September, 1977, enhanced the compensation further to Rs. 6,000 per acre for land situated in this village. The petitioners contend that even this rate of compensation is too low, and that they are entitled to at least Rs. 14,000 per acre. As regards land situated in the second village Deh Dieh the relevant notifications were issued on the 7th of March, 1962 and the 13th of June, 1962 respectively. The Collector fixed the rate of compensation at Rs. 6,000 per acre. In the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, a learned Judge of the High Court enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 8,000 per acre. In appeal under the Letters Patent, the compensation was further enhanced to Rs. 9,680 per acre. The petitioners contend that the toper rate of compensation for lands situate in this village was at least Rs. 14,400 per acre. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that although the learned Judges in the High Court have correctly enunciated the principles applicable to the determination of compensation under subsection (2) of section 23 of the Act, yet they have not correctly applied the same, inasmuch as several transactions, which were directly relevant for the purpose, have been ignored for insufficient or untenable reasons ; and that in the case of village Phiai there is a patent error in calculating the compensation per acre, as after fixing the rate at Rs. 150 per yard, the learned Judges have stated that the compensation per acre would be Rs. 6,000, whereas it works out to Rs. 7,260 per acre measuring 4840 yards. It is also complained that the High Court has not made it clear whether it was maintaining the 15 % statutory allowance and 6 % interest permissible under the law while granting ‑ enhanced compensation. After examining the record with the help of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these three cases, we are not persuaded that any justification has been made out for our interference in the matter. The transactions which have been ignored by the learned Judges in the High Court are primarily those through which different Co‑operative Societies had purchased land in these villages for building purposes. The learned Single Judge, who dealt with the matter in the first instance, took the view that although no collusion was alleged to have existed between the office bearers of the co‑operative societies and the sellers, yet there was no explanation why the co‑operative societies had paid substantially higher rates than the prevailing market rates when they acquired land for allotment to their shareholders. This view had been endorsed by the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench with the remarks that the societies did not act as prudent purchasers should have done, and, therefore, the rates paid by them could not form the basis for assessing the compensation payable to the present petitioners. , These are cogent reasons for excluding these transactions from consideration, and no exception can be taken thereto. Some other transactions were also left out of consideration by the learned Judges in the High Court, and we find that good reasons were given for adopting this course. It is not necessary for us to enumerate these transactions for the disposal of the present petitions, as their details are spelt out in paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench, and they have been rightly ignored as they were sales between relations, or were of a speculative nature. As to the complaint that the rate per acre has not been correctly calculated in respect of lands in Deh Phiai, we find that the High Court has consciously fixed the rate at Rs. 6,000 per acre, and that the rate of Rs. 1.50 per square yard was mentioned only as an approximat6 price. There is therefore no question of a mistake in calculations. As a result, we are of the view that the assessment of compensation payable to the petitioners has been rightly and fairly assessed by the learned) Judges of the Letters Patent Bench, and no justification is made out for us to interfere with the same. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel)" for the petitioners as to the uncertain position in regard to the payment of 15% for compulsory acquisition and of interest as permissible under the law, seems to be unfounded as the High Court has modified the Collector's award only with regard to the rate of compensation payable per acre, and has not taken away any of the other items of compensation as awarded by the Collector. With these observations; the petitions are hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.