1979 PLP 523 (CLC)

Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent. Date of bearing: 22nd December 1976. This appeal is directed against an order passed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by Mr. Muzaffar Mussain on 20th of July, 1973, raising the compensation for the respondent's land from a sum of Rs. 1,950, to Rs. 4,500 per kanal. He further held that the respondent is entitled to 15 percent compulsory acquisition charger; on the enhanced amount and interest at the rate of 6J per cent, from the date of Collector's award i.e. 14-9-1963.

2. On the 20th of May, 1963, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for; acquisition of 867 Kanals, 15 marlas of area for constructing a link road from Ferozepur Road to the site of the BECO Factory. The area of the respondent Khasra No. 533 (3 kanals, II rnarlas) in village Pindi Rajputan, Teshil and District Lahore, was included within this area. A notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on the 15th of June,

190. On the 9th of August, 1963, the Land Acquisition Collector, P. W. D. B & R Branch, Central Region, Lahore, gave an award. He distributed the land into four categories "A, B, C & D in accordance with its value. The most valuable land was considered to be of categories 'A' and `B'. The land of respondent in the above khasra number was treated, to be the land belonging to category `A'. Although the Collector refused to rely upon the five years average and further found that in 1962 and 1963 the average price off the land sold in Blocks 'A' and 'B' ranged from Rs. 1800 to Rs. 3,000 per kanal; while assessing the value of different lands he assessed 17e value of 3 khasra numbers in the same category at Rs. 2, 100, per kanal one khasra number in the same category at Rs. 2,000 per kanal, and of four khasra numbers including khasra No. 535 at Rs. 1,950 per kanal. Some other area in the same category was valued at Rs. 2, 000, per kanal. This was contrary to the principle that this value should be fixed which is favourable to the owner of tine property. He has not also given the basis for distinguishing between property in the same category and another. Although respondent claimed Rs. 5,000 per kanal as the value of his land but he allowed him only a sum of Rs. 1, 950 per kanal. It is for these reasons, that aggrieved against the award of the Collector the respon dent filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Administrative Civil Judge after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there w ere no pits in khasru number in dispute, that BICO Factory was situated at a distance of one furlong front that khasra, that Khyber Tobacco Company, Ittefaq Company and Crushing Limited were situated near the Beco Company, that the above khasra number was situated in Factory area and that it was within the Lahore Township Scheme. He also presumed the four-fold or five times increase in the population of Lahore, Acting upon the dictum laid down in The Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi v. Lt. Gent. Wajid Ali Khan Burk (P L D 1960 Lab. 469) that the best method of zing the market value is to find out what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller, he raised the valuation to a sum of Rs. 4, 500.

3. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that the area in dispute is a building site, that it is near the factories mentioned above, that it is in factory area and that it is a part of the Lahore Township Scheme. I t is also not denied that the land is quite valuable and belongs to category 4th' as held by the Collector. Learned, counsel, however, raised an objection that the respondent had himself claimed, sum of Rs. 3,200, per kanal as the value of the area in dispute and had relied upon 3 mutations bearing kilos. 961, 1008 and 1009, all dated 12-6-1963. The last two mutations, according to him proved the area near the land to have been sold at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per kanal. He also argued that the order of the Collector was reasonable and he had taken all matters into consideration. He further assailed the order of the learned Civil Judge on the ground that he had taken some irrelevant matter into consideration; for example increase in the popula tion of Lahore by 4 to 5 times. Lastly he argued that since the respondent had already received the compensation as found by the Collector no interest would accrue on it.

4. I have gone through the evidence on .record. I am of the view that t here is no basis for the allegation, on the present record, that a demand of Rs. 3, 200, per kanal was made: by the respondent or that he had relied upon mutations Nos. 1008 and 1009. This objection is, therefore, without force and is not borne out by the evidence on record.

5. Now the evidence consists of two documents. On of these documents is caudation No. 961, Exh. P. I which was attested on the 12th of March, 1963 and. by which an area of 5 marlas was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,000, which !brings the rate at Rs. 8,000, per kanal. The other document is Exh. P. 2 registered sale deed of 6 kanals of land for a sum of Rs. 56,000, registered 011 9-2-1965. The oral evidence consists of 3 witnesses. A. W. I has merely made a statement about the situation of the land in dispute at the spot about which there is no contest in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. A. W. 2, a Property Dealer stated that fie had been instrumental an selling lands of different pieces in the locality and those pieces were sold a rate ranging from Rs. 4,003 to Rs. 4,500, per kanal. It was not suggested him in cross-examination that he was not a property dealer or that fie had rate been instrumental in the transfer of some areas. On the other hand the cross-examination assumed that some area was sold through him. Certain suggestions were put to him in order to prove that the land in some of the khasra numbers was sold at a very low rate but one suggestion which is very important was that Khasra No. 447 equal to 10 marlas was sold for a sum of Rs. 2,500 which he admitted this proved the rate of this land as Rs. 5,000 tree kanal. Regarding the khasra numbers which were transferred at a low rate fie explained that they were of meagre quality. No evidence in rebuttal was produced except five years average Exh. R. W. 1/1 which had been discarded by the learned Collector. (1)

6. It is clear from this evidence that the area in dispute is of the. best quality falling in category `A' as found by the Collector himself. The muta tion No. 961 proves that such areas have been sold for a sum of Rs. 8,000 per kanal in the year 1963 before the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. That the valuation of the area is much more than Rs. 1,950, is further proved by the valuable suggestion put on behalf on the petitioner to the A. W. 2 in regard to the sale of Khasra No. 447 which proved the rate to be Rs. 5, 000, per kanal. Clearly, therefore, it is established from this evidence that the value of the property in this locality in the year 1963, before the issuance of notification under section 4 ranged from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 per kanal. The document Exh. P. 2 cannot be taken into consideration since it is a sale deed of property sold 2 years after the said notification. The case of the respondent is, therefore, proved by Exh. P. 1 A and supported by oral evidence of A. W. 2. its

7. Even Exh. R. W. 1/1 shows that some' land had been sold as far back as in the year 1960 for a much higher value. Reference may be mad to mutation No. 516 dated 27-5-1960 by which 4 kanals of land was sold at that time for a sum of Rs. 10,

000. Similarly, mutation Nos. 770, 771, 772 and 783 prove the value range in the year 1961 from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 5,002 per kanal. The value of the best land, therefore, in the year 1963 must be much higher and cannot be less than Rs. 4,500, which has been fixed by the learned Civil Judge. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by him. As regards the award of the Collector, I have already discussed in the opening part of my judgment the way, in which has arbitrarily fixed the value of the land.

8. The last argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has, however, considerable force. The interest can be awarded on the difference between the amount awarded by the learned Civil Judge and the amount awarded by the Collector. The learned Civil Judge has awarded the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. By Act III of 1969, section 28 was amended and the rate of interest was raised to "compound interest on such excess at the rate of eight per centum". The following proviso was also added at the end:- "Provided that in all cases where the Court has directed that Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum front the date on which possession vas taken and the payment of compensation or a part thereof has not been made up to the commencement of the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Act, 1969, the rate of compound interest on such excess or balance shall he eight, per centum." The rate of interest payable on the difference between the value calculated at the rate of Rs. 4,500 and Rs. 1,95(), will therefore, be eight per centum from the date of the award of the Collector. I, therefore, allow the appeal, modify the order and decree of the learned trial Court only to the extent of interest as stated above. I leave the parties to bear their own cost. Appeal allowed.