1988 PLP 624 (CLC)

Taqi Ahmad Khan for Appellant. M.M. Saeed Beg for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th November, 1987 ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.‑‑This appeal against the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, dated the 28th April, 1983, partially accepting the reference made on the application of the appellant for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector for compulsory acquisition of her land and house arises out of the following circumstances. The Provincial Government acquired 75 Kanals 19 Marlas of land entered in Khasra Nos. 2418, 2419, 2433 to 2436, 2438 to 2444, situate in the area of Narowal estate, tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot, for the purpose of construction of Wing Headquarters of Chenab Rangers. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published in the official gazette on the 30th December, 1974. The owners of the land put forth before the Land Acquisition Collector the demand of compensation at the rate of Rs.90,000 per Kanal. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on the 2nd January, 1980, giving compensation at the rate of Rs.3,040 per Kanal and Rs.13,050 in respect of the appellant's house.

2. The appellant owned 15 marlas of land whereupon she had built a house which was acquired. Having not accepted the award she moved the Collector requiring the matter to be referred to the Court for determining the true amount of compensation.

3. She asked for increase in compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000 which move of her was opposed by the respondents who considered the compensation awarded by the Collector to be adequate.

4. As regards the value of 15 Marlas of land fixed by the Collector the learned trial Court did not make any change. However, it accepted the value of the structure of the house as worked out by the respondent's Engineer in Exh. D‑1, amounting to Rs.17,738.84 in place of Rs.13,050 assessed by the Collector in his award. The learned Court awarded Rs.950 as value of the hand pump installed in the house and Rs.1,800 as value of guava trees standing in the compound of the house as compensation to the appellant. All told she was to receive Rs.22,768.84. Feeling aggrieved she has approached this Court in appeal.

5. The appellant cannot obviously make use of the sale‑deed, whose copy, Exh. P.3; she placed on the record of the learned trial Court, because by means thereof 2‑3/4 Marlas of land situate within the municipal limits of Narowal was sold for purpose of construction of house on the 28th February, 1981. Agricultural land as the one in dispute can hardly be compared in the matter of price with the land lying in the Municipal Committee area used for construction of building thereon. Moreover, there had been appreciable increase in the price p of land from the 30th December, 1974, when the notification for acquisition of the land in dispute was published and price in 198 was manifold that obtaining in 1974. Therefore, the sale‑deed (Copy Exh.P.3) is of little assistance to advance the appellant's case.

6. The report (Exh.AWl/1) of the Commissioner, Muhammad Siddiq Shah, Sub‑Engineer, Municipal Committee, Narowal, P.W.1, mentioning the price of the land at the rate of Rs.60,000 per Kanal on the face of it is not acceptable because he set down the price of his own light without mentioning any reason and without making proper inquiry. It has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court. .

7. The oral evidence produced by the appellant‑‑on the point of market value of the land consists of the bare statement of her Mukhtar, Muhammad Iqbal Shah, P.W.3, who said that the value of the property was Rs.90,000 to Rs.95,00,

000. Mere word of mouth, unsupported by cogent documentary evidence, can hardly form basis for decision of the value. The learned trial Court was not shown to have in any way misread or ignored any evidence in formulating its finding which seems to be unexceptionable and does not require any displacement.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant made grievance of the fact that neither the Land Acquisition Collector nor the learned trial Court awarded a sum equivalent to fifteen per cent of the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the appellant was entitled to receive the aforesaid amount under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act:

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector had not been paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the appellant had the right to get compound interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the time of taking possession till the payment or deposit of the said amount of compensation could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is true that the amount of compensation assessed by the Collector in the award was not paid or deposited on or before the Government took over possession of the land. This renders the Government liable to pay compound interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from the date of taking over possession till the payment or deposit of the amount of compensation as envisaged by section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.

10. In view of the above this appeal is partially accepted with costs and the judgment under appeal is modified to the extent that the appellant will recover a sum of fifteen per cent of the amount of compensation in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition as well as compound interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum on the amount of compensation assessed by the Collector from the time of taking over possession of the land till the payment or deposit of the aforesaid amount. H.B.T./G‑104/L Order accordingly