2009 PLP 79 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.

Chairman WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others appellants are aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Land Acquisition, D.I. Khan, dated 14-11-2005 vide which the reference petition filed by the respondents under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act regarding the suit-land vide Award No.159 dated 5-10-1995 by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, C.R.B.C. Project WAPDA, was accepted and the awarded compensation was enhanced from Rs.4,000 to Rs.8,000 per Kanal and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that the Land Acquisition Collector C.R.B.C. Project WAPDA acquired some land vide impugned Award and fixed the compensation as Rs.4,000 per Kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest from the date of taking over possession till the payment of the compensation. Muhammad Mushtaq etc., being not satisfied from the assessment of the learned Land Acquisition Collector, filed a reference petition which was sent to the Referee Court. The Referee Court, after calling for the replication and recording of evidence, came to the conclusion that the land acquired vide impugned Award was of potential value and the learned Land Acquisition Collector has granted very meagre compensation and has under valued the land of the expropriated landowners. Resultantly, the reference petition was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 14-11-2005 and hence, the present appeal by Chairman WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and others.

3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Referee Court has fallen into an error while enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,000 to Rs.8,000 per Kanal. The land was barren and was not having any potential value and thus, the compensation assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was reasonable. It was submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge has not considered the data available on the record.

4. On the other hand, the attorney for the respondent submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Collector had under assessed the land of the respondents and had awarded very meagre compensation which the learned Referee Court has rightly enhanced.

5. I have gone through the record of the case and also minutely studied the data available on the record.

6. At the outset it is sufficient to note that vide the same Award, the land of Syed Abid Hussain etc. was acquired from the same Khata and from the same Chunk of land against which a reference was filed and the learned Referee Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.4,000 to Rs.8,000 per Kanal. The acquiring department and Land Acquisition Collector etc. filed an appeal before this Court (R.F.A. No.20 of 2005) which was heard on 26-2-2007 and on the same date the appeal was dismissed.

7. The land subject-matter of the present appeal as well as that of R.F.A. No.20 of 2005 is the same and is compact block having the same potential value. So, when the land is acquired by the same Award which has earlier been maintained by this Court, thus, in view of the dictum laid down in M.C. Gujrat and others v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 1994 Lah. 126, this Court will not interfere in the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and it was a perfectly sound order by the learned Referee Court who awarded the compensation after taking into consideration the data available on record.

8. This is the cardinal principle of law that the landowners should be paid the compensation and not the price. The Court has to consider the location of the land, the high potential value and its fitness for Abadi. One year average is not the true criterion for fixation of the compensation. The land may be recorded in the revenue record as Nehri, Banjar Qadeem or even barren, but its future use to be put to building sites cannot be ruled out. So, in that eventuality the price of a willing purchaser and willing seller has to be awarded to the expropriated landowners.

10. The Honourable Supreme of Pakistan had laid down certain principles while considering and fixing the compensation to be paid to the expropriated landowners which are enumerated as under: (i) That an entry in the revenue record as to the nature of the land may not be conclusive, for example, land may be shown in Girdaweari as Maira, but because of the existence of a well near the land, makes it capable for becoming Chahi land. (ii) That while determining the potentials of the land, the use of which the land is capable of being put, ought to be considered. (iii) That the market value of the land is normally to be taken as existing on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act but for determining the same the price on which similar land situated in the vicinity was sold during the preceding 12 months and not 6-7 years back, may be considered including other factors like potential value etc. as held in the case of Province of Punjab through Collector, Attock v. Engr. Jamil Ahmad Malik and others 2000 SCMR 870.

11. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is perfectly sound, according to law and in accordance with the established principles relating to the appreciation of evidence on the record which calls for no interference.

12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, this appeal fails which is dismissed. H.B.T./185/P Appeal dismissed.