1984 PLP 2310 (CLC)

AKHTAR HASSAN, J.‑This regular First Appeal brought by the Govern ment of Pakistan calls in question a decree, dated 21st July, 1976 of Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Sheikh, the then Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, whereby he modified a compensation award, dated 1st December, 1969 under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894.

2. The land measuring 77 Kanals 9 Marlas situate in village Garjakh, Tehsil and District Gujranwala was acquired for Defence Clothing Factory vide notification, dated 26th June, 1968. The compensation determined by the Collector in the impugned award was Rs. 100 per Marla besides the addition of 15 per cent compulsory charges. Respondent No. 1 Muhammad Nisar owning an area of 14 Kanals out of the land acquired, was not satisfied with the rate of compensation awarded by the Collector and applied under section 18 of the Act for a Reference to the Senior Civil Judge. His grievance was that the rate generally prevalent in the vicinity was Rs. 1.00,000 per acre, the moreso in case of the impugned land as it was abutting Qadirat‑bad‑Gujranwala, metalled road, alongwith which factories, shops, residential quarters were constructed ; was sandwiched by Abadis of villages' Dulla, Rajkot and Garjakh ; was located only a mile away from Gujranwala town, and was having residential houses towards that side. He added that it was a very fertile piece of land yielding profits in the shape of vegetables etc: and locality‑wise deserved special consideration in the assessment of the compensation. Lastly, he claimed that the land was most likely to have been included in the limits of the expanding city of Gujranwala and that for this reason alone, the average price of the past years was not a true index of its compensation.

3. The Collector forwarded the reference to the civil Court where the petition was resisted by the appellant‑Government maintaining that the rate of compensations was quite adequate. The following issues were framed :‑

"(1)Whether thee compensation covered by the impugned order is inadequate ? If so, what is the adequate compensation ? O. P. A. (2) Relief. The learned Senior Civil Judge, however, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,0000 per Killa and modified the‑ award accordingly. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal was preferred.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that against thee decree, dated 21st July, 1976, to file the present appeal on 6th November, 1977 was hopelessly barred by time. The objection was rather formidable as was not explained on any hypothesis. All that Mr. Zia Mahmoodd Mirza, Advocate, for the appellant could say in this behalf was that a lot of time was consumed in official correspondence from office to office and reference to the Law Division for obtaining sanction to file the present appeal and that in any case, there was no deliberateness in filing g it late. The explanation was too general to be accepted. No material was brought on the record to show how much time was taken in the inter office correspondence, obtaining copies, and then the sanction of the Law Division. The delay of each day had to be explained and in this case it being of somewhat 124 days, needed some thing convincing for coondonation. No genuine effort was made to explain it away and hence the appeals fails on this preliminary objection.

5. Even on merits, there is not much for the appellant. It appears respondent No. 1 in support of his contentions placed mutations Exhs. P. 2 to P. 9 and a previous J judgment, dated 19th December, 1975 Exhs. P. 11 on the record to show t that the rate prevalent in the area was much higher than Rs. 100 per Maarla. Nothing in rebuttal was produced by the appellant‑Government. . The learned Senior Civil Judge excluded from consideration all mutations excepting Exh. 4 sanctioned on 26th June, 1968 on the ground that at they had been attested later than the notification in question. However at he relied upon mutation Exh. P. 4, dated 26th June, 1968 as it related 1 to a nearby piece of land and had been transacted the day the land in question was acquired. He further took note of the judgment Exh. P. 11 which pertained to another piece of laud situate in the same very estate and was acquired by the same notification. By it, compensation @ Rs. 80,000 per acre was awarded earlier on 19th December, 1975 by the same Court. Thus, taking these two documents into account, the lower Court fixed the same rate of compensation for this parcel of land as well.

6. The respondent besides placing reliance upon the documents indicated above, had in his testimony as a witness deposed that it was a very valuable piece of land situate on roadside only a mile away from Gujranwala town. These features were not rebutted. The earlier decree Exh. P. 11 was upheld by this Court in R. F. A. 71/76 on 1lth January, 1982. It related to a part of the same land acquired for the same public purpose, namely, construction of the same Clothing Factory. There was no reason why not to adopt the same rate for this portion of land, parti cularly when it was upheld by this Court. Equally, the mutation Exh, P. 4 having been sanctioned on the acquisition itself and relating to the land situate in the same estate, could not be altogether ignored. In fact, it was based upon a registered document and was not a mutation simpliciter as could be easily assailed to be fabulous. No reason was shown for interference with the compensation award by the Court below. It is upheld.

7. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving parties to bear their costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.