1989 PLP 4242 (MLD)

R.F.A.No. 128 of 1977 (15) R.F.A.No. 129 of 1977 (16) R.F.A.No. 130 of 1977 (17) R.F.A.No. 131 of 1977 (18) R.F.A.No. 132 of 1977 (19) R.F.A.No. 133 of 1977 (20) R.F.A.No. 134 of 1977 (21) R.F.A.No. 135 of 1977 (22) R.F.A.No. 136 of 1977 (23) R.F.A.No. 137 of 1977 (24) R.F.A.No. 138 of 1977 (25) R.F.A.No. 139 of 1977 (26) R.F.A. No. 140 of 1977

2. The appellant had acquired an area of 323 Acres 9 .Kanals and 15 Marlas of land vide Notification dated 7th of June, 1967 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose of establishing a Cantonment at Gujranwala. The question of payment of compensation to the owners of the hind was taken up by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, Gujranwala who vide his award dated 19th of September, 1969, assessed the compensation of the cultivated land at Rs. 4,6(K) per acre and of the unirrigated land at Rs. 2,3(X) per acre.

3. The respondents disputed this rate of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and the matter 'vas referred, on their applications, to the Senior Civil Judge under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 198-1. They claimed that the compensation should be at least Rs. 10,000 per acre. This reference was contested by the appellant, which pleaded that the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded just and fair compensation. The trial Court, framed the following two issues "(1) Whether the lands of the petitioners, whose cases have been consolidated above was inadequately valued for the purposes of compensation? If so, what was the correct amount of compensation? (2) Relief."

4. In support of their case, the respondents examined Muhammad Ibrahim Patwari as A.W.1 who produced a statement of average sale price of the lands located in the village. Barkat Ali one of the applicants appeared as AW.2 to state that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition was grossly inadequate. The respondents also produced a copy of the Collector's report made by the Tehsildar during the proceedings before the Collector as Ex.A-3 and copies of two mutations as A-4 and A-5 respectively. The appellant, on the other hand did not produce in evidence except a copy of the award. On the basis of the evidence led before it, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was' inadequate and did not commensurate with the market value of the land. I therefore, enhanced the compensation in respect of the irrigated land from Rs. 4,(4x) to Rs. 6,500 and from Rs. 2,300 to 3,500 for Banjar land. 5 Sh. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants in all thesc appeals, has contended that there was no justification for the trial Court to have enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector - who after considering all the relevant factors had awarded just and fair compensation. This contention of the learned counsel is without force. The Land Acquisition Collector himself deputed the Tehsildar, Gujranwala to submit his report as to the market value of the land. In his report, the Tehsildar stated that the value of the agricultural land was at least Rs: 6,500 and of the Banjar land Rs. 3,500 per acre. A copy of this report was produced in evidence by the respondent as Ex. A-3. Though an opportunity was granted to the appellant to produce evidence by which they could have rebutted this report, but they failed to do so and stated that they did not desire to produce any evidence except the disputed Award itself. The Land Acquisition Collector even in the award did not advert to the report nor gave any reason for discarding it. The respondents had also produced other evidence to show that the compensation awarded by the Collector was grossly inadequate. This evidence too was no rebutted by the appellant by producing no evidence at all. The award also appear to be self-contradictory inasmuch as the transaction witnessed by Mutation No. 291 was ignored by -the Collector on the ground that it was between the parties closely related. He, however, relied upon Mutation No. 202 which was also between the parties similarly related.

6. It is also to be noticed that the Land Acquisition Collector had himself inspected the land in dispute and had recorded the following observation in his award. "I have personally inspected the area under acquisition and have observed that the area of this village is almost of a good quality. The area under acquisition is situated near the public roads known as G.T. Road and Gujranwala-Qadirabad Road and is connected with Kacha Rasta, Gujranwala Food-grain Market and Rahwali Mills area is within the reach of the land owners of this village and they have got the facilities of electricity. They are availing the facilities of quick transportation and feel no difficulty in transporting their farm produce and carrying the fertilizer and manures to their fields. Moreover with the introduction of improved seeds, fertilizer and mechanized farming the potential value of the land in question is increasing day by day and the land owners of the locality arc possessing very good financial position ...." Unfortunately, however, while assessing the value of the land, its potential was totally ignored by the Collector for no valid reasons. In Malik Aman and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (PLD 1988 S C 32) the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that:-- It is, therefore, evident that the factors for determination of the market value of the land proposed to be acquired arc not restricted only to the time of issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or any period prior to it, but can also relate to the period m future (i.e. to period after the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act). It is for this reason that the "potential value" of the land i.e. the use in which it can be put in future, has in a far a number of cases been held to be a relevant factor ...." This aspect of the matter was totally ignored by the Collector. In the facts an circumstances of the case and keeping in view all the relevant facts including the value and location of the land, the trial Court was justified in enhancing the compensation as it did and no interference is called for. These appeals arc also C incompetent in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Bahram Khan and 55 others v. Military Estate Officer and 2 others (1988 SCMR 1100) and Pir Khan through his legal heirs v. Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad and others (PLD 1987 S C 485). For the foregoing reasons all these Regular First Appeals are found to be without force and are dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./G-263/L Appeals dismissed.