2023 PLP 2092 (SCMR)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAKIA BEGUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 2092 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, C.J., Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ |
| Parties | FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAKIA BEGUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 2092 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 2092 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, C.J., Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 2092 (SCMR) (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. ZAKIA BEGUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rashdeen Nawaz Qasoori, Additional A.G.P. assisted by Muhammad Ibrahim, Advocate High Court and Rameez Sarfraz, MEO Abbottabad for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 24.03.2022 passed by this Court in C.As. Nos. 2150-2263 of 2019 and C.M.As. Nos. 5284-5300 of 2020)
Ss. 23 & 24
Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, R. 10(1)(iii)
Agricultural/revenue classification
In the present case considering that the land was acquired for a single project, the Supreme Court in the judgment under review affirmed the value assigned by the High Court to the acquired land for the reason that the original value as determined by the Collector and the Referee Court was based on revenue classifications which have no relevance for the purposes of calculating compensation
Furthermore, when land is acquired in small parcels, awarding compensation based on revenue classifications to small parcels of land is to the disadvantage of the landowners, because it undermines the potential value of the large parcels of land acquired for a single project
Consequently, the uniform valuation for the entire land acquired for the project possessed justification
Calculation of potential value of acquired land by a Court of law starting from the referee Court up to the Supreme Court cannot be left to their discretionary assessment
There must be guidelines framed by the competent legislative or regulatory bodies for determining the potential value of the land acquired for various types of public purpose projects
No ground was found to interfere with the judgment under review
Review petitions were dismissed. Federal Government of Pakistan v. Mst. Zakia Begum PLD 2023 SC 277 ref.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J.
We have heard the learned Additional Attorney General at length. His principal grievance is that the increase in value of acquired land to the amount that the High Court has ordered is not backed by evidence. Paragraph-05 of the judgment of the High Court records the evidentiary values of the land acquired according to its agricultural/revenue classification. Considering that the land is acquired for a single project, this Court has affirmed the value assigned by the High Court to the acquired land for the reason that the original value as determined by the Collector and the Referee Court was based on revenue classifications which have no relevance for the purposes of calculating compensation. Furthermore, when land is acquired in small parcels, awarding compensation based on revenue classifications to small parcels of land is to the disadvantage of the landowners, because it undermines the potential value of the large parcels of land acquired for a single project. Consequently, the uniform valuation for the entire land acquired for the project possesses justification. Reference is made to paragraph-17 of our judgment under review reported as "Federal Government of Pakistan v. Mst. Zakia Begum" (PLD 2023 SC 277).
2. An important aspect of our judgment under review is that the calculation of potential value of acquired land by a Court of law starting from the referee Court up to this Court cannot be left to their discretionary assessment. There must be guidelines framed by the competent legislative or regulatory bodies for determining the potential value of the land acquired for various types of public purpose projects. To emphasize the point, we reproduce the said observation made in paragraph-18 of our impugned judgment: "
18. Ideally, there should be guidelines to calculate this value, however, since the efforts of the government have been to undervalue the land, no real effort has gone into devising a scheme to calculate potential value over the years. This is why there is so much litigation on just this issue. Under the circumstances, there is a dire need to legislate on the issue and to devise a methodology to calculate potential value and market value so that it is neither arbitrary nor left to the whims of the Collector. This should be a priority for the government as acquisition cannot be at the expense of the financial loss of a landowner. Where there is acquisition, for public purpose, the Act mandates that a fair value is prescribed based on the market value and the potential value of the land and the cases of this Court give sufficient guidance on calculating market value and potential value, hence, there appears to be no justification to continue with archaic concepts whilst valuing the land. In these cases, market value and potential value has been assessed at Rs.30,000/- per kanal based on the willing buyer, willing seller formula as well as on the available amenities such as transport, electricity, urban development and industrialization, which shows there is potential for the area to be fully developed. This is based on the evidence and calculation of future prospects. Unfortunately, a great amount of time was consumed for the land owners to get the worth of their land all of which could have been avoided, had the value been properly assessed."
3. In the light of foregoing, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment under review. Dismissed. MWA/F-18/SC Review dismissed.