1987 PLP 2095 (CLC)
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MIANWALI and another‑‑ Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD AMIR and 4 others‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2095 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abaid Ullah Khan and Akhtar Hassan, JJ |
| Parties | ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MIANWALI and another‑‑ Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD AMIR and 4 others‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2095 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2095 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan and Akhtar Hassan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2095 (CLC) (ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MIANWALI and another‑‑ Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD AMIR and 4 others‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑Ss. 54, 4 & 18‑‑Compensation‑‑ Determination of compensation in respect of trees standing on acquired land‑ ‑Evidence‑‑Appellants grievance that their evidence was illegally closed by Land Acquisition Court‑‑Record of proceedings of case disclosing that appellants had been given a number of opportunities to produce evidence and lastly when case had been adjourned it was made clear to them that no further opportunity would be granted‑‑Appellants, however, producing only two witnesses, there being no other witness present on the last adjourned date of hearing‑‑Appellants wanted to produce additional evidence by examining Patwari and Deputy Director Agriculture to get the reasons for revised estimate of number and value of trees‑‑Such examination, in view of documentary evidence, available on record, would have been otiose‑‑Order of Land Acquisition Court closing the evidence of appellants, held, could not be described to be unjustified and in circumstances of case they could have no legitimate grievance in that behalf.
- Asadullah Siddiqi for Appellant No. 2.
- Chaudhry Khurshid Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
- Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ ‑‑‑ Ss. 4 & 18‑‑Compensation‑ ‑ Determination of‑‑Validity of corrigendum issued by Land Acquisition Collector reducing compensation already awarded‑‑Such corrigendum forming part of award and appellants relying upon same‑‑Respondents were assailing correctness of award in which corrigendum had been merged‑‑Land Acquisition Court, held could consider legality and effect of the corrigendum in circumstances. (c) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 12 (a) & 18‑‑Compensation‑‑Corrigendum to award‑‑Land Acquisition Collector, after announcing award, became functus officio and was not competent to review or change it‑‑Power of Land Acquisition Collector to amend award was restricted under S. 12(a), to making correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake in award but could not go to extent of drastically reducing the amount of compensation on basis of information received four months after announcing the award‑‑Act of Land Acquisition Collector in issuing corrigendum, held, was wholly illegal and consequently amendment made in the award was not sustainable. (d) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ ‑‑‑ Ss. 4 & 18‑‑Compensation‑‑ Determination of compensation in respect of fruit‑bearing trees standing on acquired land‑‑Land Acquisition Court accepting figures relating to number of trees in earlier report of Extra‑Assistant Director of Agriculture in preference to those contained in his subsequent report for the simple reason that he had in unequivocal words furnished the earlier figures after inspecting the spot in the presence of parties and had reconfirmed them by his subsequent communications and that different figures given by him subsequently long after announcement of award could not be taken to be true‑‑Held, decision of Land Acquisition Court was rationally and logically correct, it was difficult to accept that the Officer came to know after discussion with Land Acquisition Collector after the lapse of considerable time of announcement of award, that some typographical and clerical error had occurred in description of trees given in his earlier report and it was inexplicable as to how and why Land Acquisition Collector started discussing matters concluded by his award and how and why he undertook the job of revising the award to the detriment of interests of respondents‑land‑owners which under the law he could not do. (e) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ ‑‑‑ Ss. 4 & 18‑‑ Compensation‑‑ Determination of compensation in respect of fruit trees‑‑Deputy Director of Agriculture, on the move of Land Acquisition Collector, inspecting spot, preparing assessment report of compensation for fruit trees sending same to Collector but next day sending another report mentioning reduced rate of compensation‑?Land Acquisition Collector thinking that subsequent report automatically superseded the earlier report working out compensation on basis of rates set out in subsequent report‑‑Land Acquisition Court not favourably impressed by arguments of Land Acquisition Collector finding no justification in Deputy Director of Agriculture's revision of rates of compensation without any rhyme or reason just after twenty‑four hours and thinking that he had acted under some coercion to give new rates of compensation‑‑No exception, held, could be taken to view formulated by Land Acquisition Court in circumstances. (f) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)‑‑ ‑‑‑ Ss. 2, 4 & 18‑‑Compensation‑‑ Determination of‑‑"Land" as defined in Act includes "trees" ‑‑Contention that land owners were not entitled to award of 15% of market value of trees in consideration of compulsory acquisition charges, held, was not maintainable. ‑‑[Words and phrases].
Judgment & Decree
??????????? Fruit???????????????????????????? mate???????????????? which the????????? Mds.??????????????????????? cost. ??????????? plant???????????????????????????? yield???????????????? compen? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? per year/?????????? sation is ??????????????????????????????????????????????? plant???????????????? given ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ 1.???????? Mango seedling??????????? 2 mds.????????????? 20 years?????????? Rs. 50??????????????????????? Rs.2,000 2.???????? Mango grafted 2 mds.????????????? 20 years?????????? Rs.100 ??????????? Rs.4,000 3.???????? Malta?????????????????????????? 2 mds.????????????? 10 years?????????? Rs. 40??????????????????????? Rs.800 4.???????? Kinow????????????????????????? 2 mds.????????????? 10 years?????????? Rs. 50??????????????????????? Rs. 1, 000 5.???????? Lemon????????????????????????? ? md.????????????? 10 years?????????? Rs. 100????? Rs . 0, 500 6.???????? Guava????????????????????????? 1md.??????????????? 15 years?????????? Rs. 40??????????????????????? Rs.0,600 7.???????? Sweet lime??????????????????? 1md.??????????????? 10 years?????????? Rs.60??????????????? Rs.0,600 8.???????? pommi granate? 1md‑??????????????? 10 yers???????????? Rs. 80? ??????????? Rs.0,800 9.???????? Fig?????????????????????????????? 20 seers?????????? 10 years?????????? Rs. 80 ??????????????????????? Rs.0,400 10.?????? Jaman?????????????????????????? 2 mds.????????????? 20 years?????????? Rs. 60 ??????????????????????? Rs.2,400 11.?????? Shatoot??????????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 20 years?????????? Rs. 40??????????????????????? Rs.0,400 12.?????? Ber grafted?????????????????? 2?mds???????????? 10 years?????????? Rs. 40??????????????????????? Rs.1,000 13.?????? Date???????????????????????????? 1md.??????????????? 20 years?????????? Rs. 40??????????????????????? Rs.0,800 14.?????? Banana???????????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 2 years???????????? Rs.160??????????????????????? Rs.0,160 15.?????? Falsa??????????????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 60??????????????????????? Rs.00,75 16.?????? Litchi??????????????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs.200??????????????????????? Rs.0,500 17.?????? Papaya???????????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 1 year?????????????? Rs. 80??????????????????????? Rs.00,40 18.?????? Chieku???????????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs.100??????????????????????? Rs.0,250 19.?????? Loqat?????????????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 60??????????????????????? Rs.0,150 20.?????? Crabeapple????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 80??????????????????????? Rs‑0,200 21.?????? Grapes???????????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 80??????????????????????? Rs.0,100 Nursery plants 1.???????? Khatti seedling? Nil.?????????????????? Rs.25?? per?????? hundred ??????????????????????????????????????????????? plants. 2.???????? Citrus all varieties????????? N il.????????????????? Rs.2 per plant??????????? hundred 3.???????? Mango seedling??????????????????????????????????? Rs.25?? per plants. 4.???????? Grafted Mango nursery plant???????????????? Rs.7 per plant 5.???????? Date sucker????????????????????????????????????????? Rs.4???? per?????? plant. 6.???????? Guava nursery plant????????????????? ??????????? Re.1???? per?????? plant Newly‑planted garden The compensation would be made on the basis of Rs.10 as expenditure per plant per year plus ten basic purchase price of the fruit plant from the nursery. Sd/‑Assistant Horticultural Officer for Deputy Director of Agriculture Sargodha Division, Sargodha. Endt. No.
??????????? dated camp Mianwali the 666/74. Copy forwarded to Director of Agriculture (Extension) Punjab Lahore, for favour of information. Sd/‑Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sargodha Division, Sargodha (camp Mianwali). Note: Rates above‑mentioned are after the inspection of the spot of each owner of the gardens." Surprisingly the next day he sent another memorandum (copy Exh.P.16) which does riot bear any number, mentioning reduced amount of compensation. The relevant text of the memorandum is reproduced below: ‑ "After actual inspection and examination of the fruit trees/plants on 16‑9‑1974, at site the requisite assessment report for the compensation of each fruit tree/plant is given below. The report contains the fruit value only. S . No. Name of?????????? Approxi‑????????? Years for????????? Rate per??????????? Total ??????????? fruit????????????????? mate???????????????? which the????????? md.????? ??????????? cost. ??????????? plant???????????????? yield???????????????? compen? ??????????????????????? per year/?????????? sation is ??????????????????????????????????? plant???????????????? given ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Khurshid Muhammad s/o Haji Mehr Zaman 1.???????? Guava????????????? 1 md.?????????????? 10 years?????????? Rs. 40? ??????????? Rs.400 2.???????? Malta?????????????? 1 md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 40? ??????????? Rs. 200 3.???????? Jaman?????????????? 2 mds.????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 60? ??????????? Rs. 600 4.???????? Fig?????????????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 80? ??????????? Rs. 200 5.???????? Lemon????????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs.100 ??????????? Rs. 250 6.???????? Kinnow??????????? 1 md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 50? ??????????? Rs. 250 7.???????? Annar?????????????? 1 md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 80? ??????????? Rs.400 8.???????? Shahtoot?????????? 1 md.?????????????? 10 years?????????? Rs. 40? ??????????? Rs. 400 9.???????? Grapes???????????? ?md.?????????????? 5 years???????????? Rs. 80? ??????????? Rs. 100 10.?????? Banana???????????? ?md.?????????????? 2 years???????????? Rs.160 ??????????? Rs.160 11.?????? Mango Seedling2 mds. 15 yeas??????????? Rs. 50? ??????????? Rs.1,500 12.?????? Dates?????????????? 1 md.?????????????? 10 years?????????? Rs. 40. ??????????? Rs.400 13.?????? Date Suckers??? Rs.4 per plant?????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Rs. 4 14.?????? Mango plant???? Rs.3 per plant?????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Rs. 3 ??????????? seedling upto ??????????? 4 years." He did not give any reason as to why he had sent the revised assessment of compensation and whether his previous assessment report for compensation contained in the memorandum of the 16th September, 1974, should be ignored. The learned Land Acquisition Judge has taken into consideration the rates of compensation given in the memorandum of the 16th September, 1974 (Exh. P.17) and not the rates cited in the subsequent assessment report (copy Exh.P.16) for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector thought that the memorandum of the 17th September, 1974 (copy Exh.P.16), automatically superseded the memorandum of the 16th September, 1974 (copy Exh. P.17), and, therefore, he worked out compensation on the basis of the rates set out in the memorandum of the 17th September, 1974. The learned Land Acquisition Judge was not favourably impressed by the arguments of the Land Acquisition Collector and found no justification in the Deputy Director of Agriculture's revision of the rates of compensation without any rhyme or reason just after twenty‑four hours. The learned Judge thought that the Deputy Director had acted under some coercion to give the new rates of compensation. No exception can be taken to the view formulated by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. Even otherwise the increase in the amount of compensation ordered by the learned Land Acquisition Judge on the basis of the figures contained in the memorandum of the Extra‑Assistant Director of Agriculture dated the 10th March, 1975 (copy Exh.P.9), and the rates supplied by the Deputy Director of Agriculture through his memorandum of the 16th September, 1974 (copy Exh.P.17) is stated by the parties to be correct. However, the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the observations of the Deputy Director of Agriculture contained in the memoranda, Exhs. P.16 and 17, that the compensation would be made on the basis of Rs.10 as expenditure per plant per year plus Rs.10 basic purchase price of the fruit plant from the nursery have escaped the notice of the learned Land Acquisition Judge while working out the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 to 4 has no objection to the deduction being made from the amount of compensation on the basis of Rs.10 as expenditure per plant per year as indicated by the Deputy Director of Agriculture. Of course the basic purchase price of the plant at the rate of Rs.10 will have to be added to and expenditure at the rate of Rs.10 per plant per year will have to be deducted from the increase in the amount of compensation ordered by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. Working out this way the deduction to be made comes to Rs.61,
260. Resultantly the aforesaid increase in compensation is reduced by Rs.61,260.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondents I to 4 are not entitled to the award of 15 per cent of the market value of the trees in consideration of compulsory acquisition charges is not at all maintainable because trees are included in the expression land as defined by the Land Acquisition Act.
12. With the above‑mentioned reduction in the increase in compensation this appeal is dismissed with costs. S.Q. /A‑106/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.