1990 PLP 530 (CLC)

This is a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act made by Assistant Commissioner Karachi West on the request of claimant Nabi Bux s/o Haji Allah Bux.

2. The brief facts forming background of this case are that agricultural lands measuring 51 acres 36 guntas bearing Survey Nos. 288, 289, 291 and 292 deh Halkani and Survey No. 32 deh Manghopir were required for public purposes i.e. implementation of Hub Dam Water Supply Scheme by KDA. This land belonged, to, inter alia, the claimant as evidenced by record of rights maintained by Mukhtiarkar Karachi West. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the owners of this land. In response to the said notices amongst others claimant Nabi Bux filed his Written Statement and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000 per acre for his 9‑3/5 pies share in the Survey No.288 (6 acres and 11 guntas) and Survey No.289 (25 acres and 4 guntas) of deh Halkani.

3. The Collector after taking into consideration the claim of Nabi Bux observed that the land was held on agricultural tenure. The market value of the agricultural land prevailing in the locality was about Rs.50,000 per acre in Deh Halkani on 29‑5‑1982 when Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition was issued. Hence he has awarded compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.50,000 per acre. He also awarded 15% statutory allowance for compulsory acquisition. He further awarded interest C 6% per annum from 29‑5‑1982.

4. Claimant Nabi Bux died during the pendency of this reference. Hence his L. Rs. have been brought on record. They have led the following evidence in support of their claim: (1) Mohammad Ismail Ex.3, Assistant in the Office of Assistant Commissioner Karachi (West). He has produced photo copy of the application made by Nabi Bux to the Assistant Commissioner for referring the award to this Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as Ex.3/1. (2) Affidavit of Mohammad Hussain s/o Nabi Bakhsh wherein besides other facts he has stated that even prior to 29‑5‑1982 the market price of similar lands situated in the vicinity of their land was about R s . 1,02,000 per acre. He has produced certified copy of a registered sale‑deed Annexure A/7 which shows that it conveyed 21 acres 36 guntas of land in dch Halkani for Rs.22,55,700 which brings the rate to Rs.1,02,000 per acre on 10‑7‑1980. It was further stated in the affidavit that the land had great potential value and that about 2 years ago the entire deh Halkani has been included by K.D.A. in Deh` Halkani Township Scheme No.43. He has also claimed compensation for trees and embankment amounting to Rs.69,000. (3) Ghulam Mustafa, Tapedar Ex.5 has produced the map of deh Halkani and has stated that the lands conveyed by the above sale‑deed Annexure A‑7 near the disputed lands and are separated only by a 20 feet wide road and are towards the Dam on the Western side while the conveyed lands are on the Eastern side. In his cross‑examination he has admitted that the value of the lands might be Rs.70,000.to Rs.80,000 per acre.

5. Gul Mohammad Shaikh Ex.6 who is a retired Assistant Commissioner, was examined as a Court witness in pursuance of orders dated 11‑1‑1989 and 23 1‑1989. Ho. has stated that Assistant Commissioners were empowered to acquire lands as Collectors in the Land Acquisition Act. He has further stated that he had simply given the award without hearing anybody. He has also admitted that he has not given particulars of any land of the same dch which were sold at the rate of Rs.50,000 per acre. He has voluntarily stated that he had got the rate from Mukhtiarkar and has admitted that he has not mentioned about the receipt of such information from Mukhtiarkar in the award. He has also admitted that the letter dated 22‑7‑1981 mentioned at page 2 of his award was issued by his predecessor and not by him. He had given the award according to the suggestions made in the said letter by his predecessor. He has further admitted that he had not given compensation for the standing trees because there were no standing trees on the land which was acquired. He has, however, admitted that he had not mentioned in his award that no trees were standing on the acquired land. He has denied the suggestion that market value of the land at the relevant time was Rs.1,02,000 per acre.

6. Mr. Khan Sanaullah, Advocate who appeared for the Collector and Assistant Commissioner West Karachi has supported the award and has stated that the rate of compensation is proper.

7. Mr. Ashiq Ali Abdullah, Advocate who appeared for the claimant has submitted that the Collector had not given the particulars and details of transactions forming the basis on which he had determined the rate of compensation.

8. From a perusal of the evidence mentioned above it would appear that the Collector has based his findings upon information conveyed by Mukhtiarkar to his predecessor. He had neither examiricd any witness nor taken any evidence nor even heard the parties. In the case of Deputy Commissioner West v. Umcr reported in P L D 1976 Karachi 614 it was held that where Acquisitioning Authority had not given particulars and details of instances forming basis of compensation awarded, nor it had mentioned survey numbers of land or their I areas in previous cases, nor indicated whether compensation awarded in the previous cases was accepted by the claimants or any reference was made to this Court. It was held that the compensation was not awarded on sound principles. In that case the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.2,400 per acre fort restricted land and Rs.3,000 per acre for unrestricted land which was enhanced by this Court to Rs.7,260 per acre for unrestricted land and Rs.5,425 per acre for restricted land.

9. I am satisfied that compensation awarded by the Collector in this case is not based on sound principles. He has not given the instances of previous sales. He has not referred to the extracts of sales nor has he called for the same from the office of Sub‑Registrar. Hence I have decided to rely upon the rate at which the land was sold in the sale‑ deed Annexure A.7, produced by the claimant. No doubt it is a solitary sale‑deed produced by the claimant but it would appear that it has gone unchallenged and there is no better evidence to the contrary. The land has got very good potential being in the vicinity of Hub DamV Road which is near the City of Karachi.

10. Hence I enhance the compensation from that which was awarded by Arbitrator and allow at the rate of Rs.1,00,000 per acre. 15% statutory compensation in lieu of compulsory acquisition is maintained so also the interest at the rate of 6% with effect from the date of taking over the possession till payment of compensation. The amount of compensation shall be payable to the L.Rs. of deceased Nabi Bux according to the shares which they inherit from him under Muslim Law. So far as the claim of the trees is concerned the Collector has denied that there were any trees on the land. The claim has not been substantiated by the claimant. M.B.A./A‑703/K Order accordingly.