1988 PLP 1880 (SCMR)

USMAN ALI‑SHAH, J.‑‑This Appeal No.71 of 1979 by leave of the Court and connected C.P.L.A. No.64 of 1980 which is converted into appeal have arisen from the judgment and order dated 2‑10‑1979, passed in R.F.A. No.12 of 1970, whereby, appeal of the respondent in C.A. No.71 of 1979, against the judgment dated 30‑7‑1969 of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore was accepted by the impugned judgment. On 13‑12‑1963, land measuring 10 Kanals 106 sq.ft. bearing Khasra No.2354, situate at the Intersection of Upper Mall and Canal (Lower Bari Doab Canal) Lahore, owned by the appellant in appeal No.64 of 1980 was taken possession of by the Government for public purpose to construct Bungalows for Ministers. In this connection Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 14‑7‑1965. The appellant/owner was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500 per marla for the land, compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15$, interest at the rate of 6 o from the date of possession i.e. 14‑7‑1965 and compensation at the rate of 6" frog, the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, viz. 14‑7‑1965 to 13‑3‑1966. The appellant/owner filed an application for reference, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and so the appellants in Appeal No.71 of 1979, before the Collector Lahore, for proper determination of the Market value of the land acquired. The appellant/ owner in Appeal No.64 of 1980 claimed value of the land at the rate of Rs.6,000 per marla, while the appellants in Appear No.71 of 1979 claimed that the price should not have been assessed at the rate of higher than Rs.700. The Collector m1ade references in either case to the Senior Civil Judge who, vide his judgment dated 30‑7‑1969 confirmed the award and dismissed the references in both cases under Section 18 of the said Act. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30‑7‑1969 of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, the appellant/owner filed appeal bearing R.F.A. No.12 of 1970 in the Lahore High Court, claiming Rs.4,000 per marla as compensation for the land acquired by the respondents and also claimed interest at the rate of 20% as compensation for possession before acquisition. A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court which heard the appeal, vide its judgment dated 2‑10‑1979, allowed the appeal with costs in the following terms:‑ "The appellant is only entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000 per marla for the land acquired from him. He shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.6% from the date of possession viz. 13‑12‑1963 upto the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 viz. 14‑7‑1965 and at the same rate interest from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act till payment. The appellant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 15$ for the compulsory acquisition of the land as provided for by Section 23(2) of the Act." Hence this appeal by leave of the Court by the Land Acquisition Collector (PWD) B&R Central Region, Lahore and other connected Appeal No.64 of 1980 by the appellant /owner, also by permission of the Court. In Appeal No.64 of 1980, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant/owner that the compensation awarded to him is meagre and the same may be appropriately enhanced. And now under the Amendment Act No.3 of 15‑3‑1969 the appellant/owner is entitled to receive a compound interest @ 8$ per annum upto the date of payment which was denied. by the learned High Court. While in Appeal No.71 of 1979 it is submitted that .the award given by the Collector was proper and the learned High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The suit land is situate in the‑ vicinity of the Mall Road and is facing the Zoo. The Government House is also situate at some reasonable distance from the suit land. It is also a matter of record that the suit land is surrounded by Abadi. Thus, it will obviously attract interested customers who would be willing to purchase it at a fairly reasonable price. Now the Collector while assessing the price of the land, kept before him two lists of prices with regard to the suit land. One was rough cost estimated on the basis of the data collected from the field staff, according to which land in the vicinity was sold for Rs.500 per marla. The other estimate was according to the market value viz. Rs.4,000 per marla. The learned Collector, ignoring both these prices, however, fixed the price of the suit land at the rate of Rs.2,500 per marla according to his own guess and passed an award accordingly. As regards interest on the amount payable to the appellant/owner as price of the suit land, the learned Collector granted compensation in this behalf at the rate of Rs.6$ from the date of possession till the date of payment under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He was also further granted interest at ‑the rate of Rs.15$ for compulsory acquisition of the land under Section 23(2) of the said Act. As mentioned above the award of the Collector on references, was upheld by the Senior Civil Judge. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, enhanced the price of the suit land from Rs.2,500 to Rs.4,000 per marla and also enhanced the rate of interest as indicated above. We find that the finding of the learned Judges of the High Court as regards compensation for l the acquired land is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and the learned counsel for the parties were unable to show' us any legal infirmity which would warrant interference in the same by this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant /owner, however, urged that other ,ands in the vicinity of the suit land were sold at much higher rates and the learned Judges of the High Court were wrong to ignore the same. We do not find any force in this contention. His attention was invited to the pleadings of his client before the Senior Civil Judge in which he claimed that the fair price of the suit land would be Rs.4,000 per marla. In this connection the following passage from the judgment of the High Court may be reproduced:‑ "The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant the it should be more cannot be given effect to as the appellant had asked for this before the learned Senior Civil Judge an it is this on which the appellant has paid the court‑fee o this appeal, though a note was added that if compensation paid at higher rate, more court‑fee would be paid. But the was clearly an after thought incorporated after the appeal was completed and signed. Therefore, the appellant is only entitle to compensation at the rate of Rs.4, 000 per marla for the land acquired from him." The interest given to the appellant/owner at the rate of Rs.6 from the date of possession of the suit land till the date of payment and the interest given to him at the rate of Rs.15% for compulsory acquisition is according to the acquisition law, but now under the Amendment Act No. 3 of 15th March, 1969 the appellant/owner is entitle to a compound interest. Under the circumstances we, therefore, partl3 allow this appeal to the extent of Rs.8% per annum as compound interest, from the date of possession to the date of payment, with no order as to costs. As far as Appeal No.71 of 1979 is concerned, we do not see any force in it, we, therefore, dismiss the same with costs. M.I./L‑14/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly