1988 PLP 663 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD ASADULLAH, J‑‑The land in suit, measuring 88 Kanals and 9 Marlas, situated in Mauza Chunian, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, was acquired by the appellant for construction of godowns for Food Department through a notification issued on 16‑1‑1983. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation therefor at Rs.50 per Marla through an award made on 26‑2‑1984. The respondents sought a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was accordingly made. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, through judgment, dated 29‑9‑1987, enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.459.10 per Marla. The present appeal has been filed to challenge the said enhancement of compensation. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The facts in relation to the assessment of the compensation sound strange and odd. The Land Acquisition Collector got prepared statement of average price from the Patwari (P.W.1) thrice. In the first statement the average price came to Rs.484.24 per Marla. The said rate was not approved by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector Kasur, and the Land Acquisition Collector ordered for the preparation of a second statement which was accordingly prepared for the period of 16‑1‑1982 to 15‑1‑1983. The average price according to the said statement came to Rs.477.54. This rate again did not find favour with the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Kasur and the third statement for the period from 16‑1‑1982 to 30‑3‑1983 was got prepared. The average price in the said statement came to Rs.459.10 per Marla. It will be significant to point out that the Food Department deposited the amount of compensation totalling Rs.9,33,770 at the said rate. However, this rate also was not approved by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Kasur and, therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector was forced to get prepared another (fourth) statement of average price. In the said statement only one mutation relating to a sale made on 5‑7‑1983 was incorporated and the average price according to the said mutation was determined as Rs.50 per Marla. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award accordingly, at the said rate. The Land Acquisition Collector has to assess the compensation of the acquired land of his own on the basis of the evidence produced before him including a statement relating to the average price. Under the law the Deputy Commissioner or the Collector of the District does not come into the picture so far as the aspect of fixation of compensation, by the Land Acquisition Collector, is concerned. If the assessment according to the award is found by him to be excessive, he can seek remedy in a Court of law. He has, however, no authority to interfere in the proceedings relating to the assessment of price/ compensation till the same remain pending before the Land Acquisition Collector and till the same are finalised by him through an award. The price even tentatively arrived at by the Land Acquisition Collector has not to be approved by the Deputy Commission or the Collector. The reasons for which the Land Acquisition Collector sought the approval of the Deputy Commissioner or the Collector are not ascertainable and similarly the reasons for the interference by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector Kasur are not known. For the present inquiry it is not necessary to ascertain the same because the reference, by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Kasur, for approval of the rate of compensation arrived at by him, was absolutely illegal in whatever mode it was made and similarly the interference by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector, and that too time and again, was illegal. Therefore, the rate of compensation arrived at by the Land Acquisition Collector initially at Rs.484.24 will be the rate which will be taken to have been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. However, as pointed out by the learned Senior Civil Judge in his impugned judgment, the respondents had claimed compensation at Rs.459.10 and, therefore, no compensation in excess of the same could be allowed or the respondents.

3. As already mentioned above the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 16‑1‑1983. Therefore, the period for preparing the statement for average price from 16‑1‑1982 to 15‑1‑1983 is the most relevant period. The second statement of average price is related to the said period and yielded a price of Rs.477.54 per Marla. The said statement relates to 100 alienations. Eleven alienations relate to the land situated at a distance of about 2 Furlongs while 39 alienations relate to the land situated at a distance of 2J Furlongs from the land in dispute. The land relating to 23 alienations is situated at a distance of 3 Furlongs while in two cases it is situated at 3 ? Furlongs and 3 of the same relate to a land at a distance of 4 Furlongs. Only 7 alienations relate to a land situated at a distance of 3 Kilometres while only one relates to land situated at a distance of 5 Kilometres. Excluding the said 8 alienations all the other alienations relate to a land which is near the land in dispute. Keeping in view the said situation of land the second statement of average price, if not the first statement of the average price, cannot be ignored in arriving at a correct compensation to be fixed and paid for the land in dispute. The concerned Patwari appeared as P.W.1 and stated that the property in dispute was of residential nature and the prices of such land were rising from day‑to‑day. He also made it clear that the land was situated within the Town Committee, Chunian and was at a distance of 4 Furlongs from the City. He stated that the Pacca road was at a distance of 100 Yards from the suit land and within a distance of 50 to 150 Yards therefrom people were building their houses. He re‑appeared as R.W.1 and wanted to plead the case of the appellant but he could not hide the truth. He has stated that the price of the land was assessed at Rs.459.10 per Marlas on the basis of the statement of average price but subsequently on the orders of A.C. Chunian, the price was got fixed at Rs.50 per Marla. In any case he conceded that between the land in dispute and Chunian there was a Cantonment at a distance of 11 or 2 Furlongs from the suit land and that in the Cantonment, bungalows and offices had been built. In view of the said statement it is quite clear that the land in suit is of Sakni nature and is situated near the main city of Chunian as also the Cantonment which is in between the city and the land in dispute. Similarly, it is situated near a road. As a matter of fact it is for its best situation and usefulness that the land was acquired for godowns of the Food Department. The Government will not be fool enough to build its godowns at a place which is not even connected by a road. Therefore, the plea of the appellant that the land in suit is situated far away from the city and far away from the road is just false and is also falsified by the Patwari who appeared as P.W. 1 and R.W.1. Keeping in view the situation of the land the fixation of price at Rs.50 per Marla is obviously ridiculous and is based on mala fides of the persons involved in fixation of the same. The learned Senior Civil Judge has, therefore, rightly fixed the compensation for the land in dispute at the rate of Rs.459.10 per Marla. There are no grounds for interference. The appeal is dismissed in limine. M. B.A./P‑32/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.