1987 PLP 465 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These petitions are directed against judgments and orders of the Peshawar High Court, whereby regular first appeals against decisions upon reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (No.1 of 1894) were partly allowed. Common questions are involved, therefore, they are being disposed of together. The facts and grounds in all these petitions excepting Civil Petition No. 219‑P of 1983 wherein the opposite party has laid different grounds, are the same, therefore, they are stated below as narrated therein. "The petitioner's land of undisputed identity was situated in village Khulabat which was notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3‑5‑1967 for acquisition under Tarbela Dam Reservoir Project. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 12‑10‑1973, the land under acquisition was expropriated in July/August, 1974 from the petitioners through submergence, the petitioners objection petition against the award was partially accepted by the Reference Court of Additional District Judge, Haripur on 25‑5‑1978, and the respondents first appeal in turn was then partially accepted by the Peshawar High Court on 21‑10‑1982. In assessing compensation for the land under acquisition all the forums viz. the land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court of the Additional District Judge, Haripur and the Peshawar High Court have assessed only the market value of the land as obtained on the date when the land was notified for acquisition under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Such market value which in fact was the exchange value in terms of the local Pakistani Rupee for the petitioners land notified for acquisition was thus made payable to the petitioners about seven years later in the same amount despite the fact that its value had in the meantime greatly depreciated and the value of the petitioners land had appreciated. The petitioners in their objection petition before the Reference Court as stated above had claimed enhancement of compensation per Kanal of various types of the petitioners land under acquisition due inter alia, to the devaluation of Pakistani Rupee and the Court had framed the relevant issue No. 5 whether land under reference has been under valued, if so what is the market value and fair compensation to which the objector is entitled. But the fact of devaluation was not even judicially taken notice of by the Courts below. Ground (W. Petitioner are entitled under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act to compensation on the date of expropriation and not merely to the market value obtaining seven years earlier on 3‑5‑1967 when the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Hence such market value has to be converted under the law into compensation assessed in 1974 when the land in question was forcibly expropriated from the petitioners through its submergence in the Tarbela lake. This conversion has to be done by esealating the amount of market value by at least 85% as claimed by the petitioner in their objection petition. (ii): The devaluation of Pakistani Rupee in between the date of market value and the date of expropriation /acquisition has to be taken judicial notice of when assessing/ awarding compensation of the acquired land under reference." Learned counsel for the land owners has reiterated the points urged in the petitions in para. 5(i) and (ii) reproduced above. He has also relied on Muhammad Yusuf and others v.Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and others P L D 1976 SC 752 and Mst. Sardar Begum and 142 others v. The Capital Development Authority and 2 others P L D 1977 Lah. 1200. The precise contention which though wide but interesting is whether it was justifiable for the Courts below when assessing fair compensation under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act to proceed on the basis of the market value on the relevant, dated 3‑5‑1967 when the same is being made in fact seven years later without taking into account the inflationary factor and also the fact that the petitioners were also deprived of the use of the money for ail these years, notwithstanding the law that section 23 is not exhaustive of the factors to be examined. Although the point was raised before the lower forum but it seems was not pressed for obvious reasons that no basis was laid by producing all the relevant material including the inflationary index and its co‑relation with the increase in the land price in the locality concerned or similar locality. Moreover, in this case after questioning the learned counsel generally about the particulars of the land and its location, the compensation awarded does not seem to be unfair. Leave to appeal in Civil Petitions 37 to 40 and 67‑P of 1983 is, therefore, refused. We, however, observe that in a given case where due basis are laid the' point raised might need serious consideration. The case in Civil Petition 219‑P of 1983 is different. It has been urged by the learned Additional Advocate‑General in support of this petition that although in the body of the impugned judgment the compensation awarded for village Khalabat has also been made the basis for village Padana the ultimate amount awarded for same categories is higher than that of village Khalabat. After some discussion it has been found that no mistake of law or principle is involved in this case at all it is a case of arithmetical error in making the calculations on the basis of 'Parts Bandobast. The clerical or arithmetical error if any can be corrected, in accordance with the judgment of the High Court which it is not denied, proceeded on basis of which it has been found, do not suffer from any infirmity. Leave is accordingly refused in that case also. With the foregoing observations all these petitions are dismissed. S.Q./4412/S Petitions dismissed.