1989 PLP 3475 (MLD)

Haji Muhammad Iqbal Malik for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, dated the 21st December, 1987, dismissing the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), which the appellant and his sister, the late Mst. Sardar Begum, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents 3(a) to 3(f), got initiated for securing enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of compulsory acquisition of 2 Kanals of their land. The Provincial Government acquired 3 Kanals 8 Marlas of land situate in the area of Doburji Mahlian estate, Tehsil, and district Sialkot, for Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, Lahore, respondent 1, for the construction of Sui Gas Transmission Main Pipelines and allied installations. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act indicating intention of the Government to acquire the land was published in the official gazette on the 8th January, 1975. A chunk of 2 Kanals of land out of the land entered in Khasra No. 86, belonging to the appellant and his sister, formed the subject‑matter of acquisition. They put forth the demand of compensation at the rate of Rs.3,000 per Marla before the Land Acquisition Collector but he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.M7 per Marla. Being dissatisfied with his award the appellate and his sister got the matter referred to the Civil Court for determination of true compensation. They averred that the land in dispute was substantially a building site, surrounded by factories and situate on the highway and that it could not be treated as agricultural land for the purpose of working out its market value. Their move was contested by the respondents and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, seized with the adjudication of the reference, was not favourably impressed by their contentions.

2. The Land Acquisition Collector calculated the value of the land on the basis of average of sale prices of eight transactions of different parcels of land lying scattered in different parts of the area of village Doburji Mahlian effected during the year preceding the publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. As is borne out by the record the appellant's land in dispute commands a much better position than the other land of the village. It is situate close to the road leading to Lahore, which of course is the most important p road of the district. It is quite near to the municipal limit of Sialkot city and could be used for building site and commercial purposes. There were springing up shops and other building structures all around it before and at the time of its acquisition and just a few years thereafter it was surrounded by factories and shops. In the circumstances it was of above average value and the yardstick of average of the sale prices of other lands, which were far away from the main road, ought not to have been applied for reckoning its market value.

3. The relevant documentary material brought on the record to help find' out the market value of the land in dispute at the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act consists of copies of mutations, Exh. P. 2 (Exh. R. 4) and Exh. R. 3, bearing out sales of portions of land forming part of Khasra No. 87, which adjoins Khasra No. 86, effected in March and April, 1974, at the rate of Rs.800 per Marla. The other documents either pertain to sales which took place quite some time after the publication of notification under section 4 or relate to lands situate far away from the main road. No doubt Khasra No. 87 abuts the Lahore road yet Khasra No. 86 is also quite near that road. Moreover, the land in dispute is on the passage which connects the road. Its value may be slightly less than that of land of Khasra No. 87 f but it cannot be equated with the value of other pieces of land situate in far flung areas or to the average of the sale prices of those lands. The value of land in 1975, when notification under section 4 was published, as a result of passage of time, can very well be presumed to be higher than the value prevailing in March and April, 1974, when land forming part of Khasra No. 87 was sold. Therefore, making allowance for increase in the value and keeping in view the situation of the land in dispute it would be legitimate to fix the market value of the said land at the rate of Rs. 700 per marla for the purpose of award of compensation to the appellant and respondents 3(a) to 3(f). Accordingly the appeal is accepted with costs, the impugned judgment is set aside and it is directed that the appellant and respondents 3(a) to 3(f) will be given compensation on the footing that the market value of their land will be worked out at the rate of Rs.700 per marla and that they will be paid 15 per cent thereof in addition for compulsory acquisition. M.Y.H./B‑148/1 Appeal allowed.