1988 PLP 686 (MLD)

AKHTAR HASSAN, J.‑‑This Regular First Appeal brought by the Government of Pakistan calls in question a decree dated 21‑7‑1976 of Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Sheikh, the then Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, whereby he modified a compensation award dated 7‑12‑1969 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. The land measuring 77 Kanals 9 Marlas situate in village Garjakh, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, was acquired for Defence Clothing Factory vide Notification dated 26-6‑1968. The compensation determined by the Collector in the impugned award was Rs. 100 per Maria besides the addition of 15 per cent compulsory charges. Respondent No. 1 Muhammad Nisar owning an area of 14 Kanals out of the land acquired, was not satisfied with the rate of compensation awarded by the Collector and applied under Section 18 of the Act for a Reference to the Senior Civil Judge. His grievance was that the rate generally prevalent in the vicinity was Rs. 1,00,000 per acre, the more so in case of the impugned land as it was abutting Qadirabad‑Gujranwala, metalled road, alongwith which factories, shops, residential quarters were constructed; was sandwitched by Abadis of villages Dulla, Ralkot and Garjakh; was located only a mile away from Gujranawala town, and was having residential houses towards that side. He added that it was a very furtile piece of land yielding profits in the shape of vegetables etc. and locality‑wise deserved special consideration in the assessment of the compensation. Lastly he claimed that the land was most likely to have been included in the limits of the expanding city of Gujranwala and that for this reason alone, the average price of the past years was not a true index of its compensation.

3. The Collector forwarded the Reference to the Civil Court where the petition was resisted by the appellant‑Government maintaining that the rate of compensation was quite adequate. The following issues were framed:‑‑ "(1) Whether the compensation covered by the impugned order is inadequate? If so, what is the adequate compensation? OPA. (2) Relief. The learned Senior Civil Judge, however, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000 per Killa and modified the award accordingly. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal was preferred.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that against the decree dated 21‑7‑1976, the present appeal riled on 6‑11‑1977 was hopelessly barred by time. The objection was rather formidable as was not explained on any hypothesis. All that Mr. Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate, for the appellant could say m this behalf was that a lot of time was consumed in official correspondence from office to office and reference to the Law Division for obtaining sanction to file the present appeal and that in any case, there was no deliberateness in filing it late. The explanation was too general to be accepted. No . material was brought on the record to slow how much time was taken in the inter A office correspondence, obtaining copies, and then the sanction of the Law Division. The delay of each day had to be explained and in this case it being of somewhat 124 days, needed something convincing for condonation. No genuine effort was made to explain it away and hence the appeal fails on this preliminary objection.

5. Even on merits, there is not much for the appellant. It appears that respondent No. 1 in support of his contentions placed mutations Exh. P. 2 to P. 9 and a previous judgment dated 19‑12‑1975, Ext. P. 11 on the record to show that the rate prevalent m the area was much higher than Rs. 100 per Marla. Nothing in rebuttal was produced by the appellant‑Government. The learned Senior Civil Judge excluded from consideration all mutations excepting Ext. P.4 sanctioned on 26‑6‑1.968 on the ground that they had been attested later than the notification in question. However, he relied upon mutation Ext. P.4 dated 26‑6‑1968 as it related to a nearby piece of land and had been transacted the day the land in question was acquired. He further took note of the judgment Ext. P.11 which pertained to another piece of land situate in the same very estate and was acquired by the same notification. By it, compensation of Rs. 80,000 per acre was awarded earlier on 19‑12‑1975 by the same Court. Thus taking these two documents into account, the lower Court fixed the same rate of compensation for this parcel of land as well.

6. The respondent besides placing reliance upon the documents indicated above, had in his testimony as a witness deposed that it was a very valuable piece of land situate on roadside only a mile away. from Gujranwala town. These features were not rebutted. The earlier decree Ext. P.11 was upheld by this Court in R.F.A. 71/76 of 11‑1‑1982. It related to a part of the same land acquired for the same public purpose, namely, construction of the same Clothing Factory. There was no reason why not to adopt the same rate for this portion of land, particularly when it was upheld by this Court. Equally, the mutation Ext. P.4 having been sanctioned on the date of acquisition itself and relating to the land situate in the same estate, could not be altogether ignored. In fact, it was based upon a registered document and was not a mutation simpliciter as could be easily assailed to be fabulous. No reason was shown for interference with the compensation awarded by the Court below. It is upheld.

7. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs. M.I./3207/L Appeal dismissed.