1989 PLP 4120 (MLD)

Syed Abid Nawaz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th April, 1989. The present appeal, R.F.A. No. 23 of 1980, and the other two appeals, R.F.As. Nos. 44 and 67 of 1980, for similarity of facts, evidence and points for determination, may be disposed of together by this judgment: 117 kanals 7 marlas of land, situate in the area of Kotla Qasim Khan Estate, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat was acquired by the Provincial Government for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of the building of the Government Intermediate College. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, indicating the Government's intention to acquire the land was published in the official Gazette on the 11th May, 1971. Before the Land Acquisition Collector, the land‑owners put forth the demand of compensation at the rate of Rs. 300 per marla of the land which was the subject‑matter of acquisition. However, the Collector, by his award of the 8th May, 1972, determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 33 per marla of chahi land and Rs. 17 per marla for barani land.

2. Being dissatisfied with the compensation given by the Collector‑ and having not accepted the award, the respondents in the three appeals got the matter referred by the Collector for the determination of the true amount of compensation to the Civil Court. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat, directed payment of enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 150 per marla to the respondent per his judgment of the 2nd April, 1979. Feeling aggrieved the Assistant Collector Kharian, has approached this Court in appeal.

3. Bagh Ali, respondent in the present appeal, owned 17 Kanals 5 Marlas of land which was acquired. Muhammad Riasat Ali, respondent in R.FA. No. 44 of 1980, lost 5 kanals 11 marlas of land through acquisition. Sardar Khan, respondent in R. F. A. No. 67 of 1980, had 50 kanals 8 marlas of land which was taken over by the Government. He has also filed cross‑objections for claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 250 per marla plus Rs. 500 as damages for diminution of the profits of the land in addition to Rs. 1,000 which he claims he had spent on levelling the land.

4. The respondents in each of the appeals produced in evidence copies of the same mutations for the purpose of establishing increased value of their land. Four of the mutations relate to sale of chah, mahal chah, house and sikni land and as such are not very relevant for giving any assistance to determine the correct market value of the land in dispute which is agricultural. These mutations have not been taken into consideration by the learned Senior Civil Judge in formulating his decision. The transactions of sale incorporated in the three mutations which the learned Judge has used to ascertain the market value of the land took place about a year after the publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Strictely speaking the evidentiary value of these alienations is much reduced. However, there are other features of the acquired land which have been noticed by the learned Judge and which could not be questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly the land in ‑dispute abutted and lay along side Lala Musa Malakwal Road hardly at a distance of a furlong or so from the municipal limits of Lala, Musa. All around it construction work was cropping up. Irrespective of its nature and kind the land was fit for raising construction thereon. Therefore, its division into chahi and barani kinds by the Collector for the purpose of ascertaining its market value was no more than artificial. The entire land could very well be treated at one level so far as its price was concerned. The land had assumed urban character. This type of land was no doubt fetching much higher price. Therefore, it was fallacious to work out its market value on the basis of average of sale prices of parcels of agricultural land lying in areas far away from the abadi or road. The determination of its price by the learned Senior Civil Judge at the rate of Rs. 150 per marla was quite reasonable and in order. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to find fault with the process of reasoning adopted by the learned Judge to reach his conclusion. Therefore, his decision does not demand any interference.

5. Sardar Khan, respondent in R.FA. No 67 of 1980, has not pressed his cross‑objections. Consequently all the three appeals as well as Sardar Khan's cross‑objections are dismissed. The respondents will get costs of their appeals from the appellants. Appeal dismissed.