Payment of compensation

2026 YLR 318 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.4, 9, 15, 18, 23, 24 & 25Compulsory acquisition of landPayment of compensationFair market valueDeterminationFactors to be consideredAward based on revenue classification and annual average rateLegalityPotential value of land and future utilityCommercial characterSurrounding developments, effect ofEnhancement of compensationScopeDelay of twenty-five years in granting fair value as compensationRight to fair and timely compensation

Briefly, land in question was acquired for the construction of the Islamabad-Murree dual carriageway pursuant to a notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, followed by an award, whereby compensation was fixed at Rs.1,60,241 per Kanal

Dissatisfied landowners sought reference under S.18 of the Act, resulting in enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,80,000 per Kanal with 15% compulsory acquisition charges by the referee court; Both sides challenged this order through cross appeals

The core issue before the High Court was the "determination of fair market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under S.4, including whether future potential and comparable sale transactions could be considered, and whether compensation could be enhanced beyond the amount initially claimed?"

Held: It was evident that the required land not only possessed commercial value at the time of acquisition but also significant future potential

The existence of nearby facilities such as a hospital, college and university reflect the prevailing market rate and the expected appreciation of the land's value

Moreover, viz limiting the award of compensation, foundational precondition for invoking the restrictive provisions of S.25 of the Act, 1894 was not met in the present case and accordingly, the objection seeking to limit the award of compensation by respondent to Rs.1,60,241/- per Kanal was devoid of merit

High Court found it necessary to express its deep concern over the prolonged delay faced by the appellants/land owners, who had waited for long 25 years to receive the fair value of their land

High Court further observed that some of the appellants had not lived long enough to see the rightful value of their property acknowledged, let alone received

Such unconscionable delay reflected not just institutional indifference but a broader apathy within the system that failed to respond to the plight of citizens, whose only fault was trusting the process

Present case, regrettably, reflected a failure not of one institution, but of the entire machinery responsible for ensuring timely and adequate compensation

Impugned order passed by referee court was modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,80,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- (4 Million) per Kanal with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% interest from the date of acquiring possession till the final payment

Appeal filed by respondents (N.H.A) stood dismissed and that of the land owners was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 CLC 1202 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.18, 30, 31, 9, 10 & 12Reference to courtLimitation, commencement ofPayment of compensationNon-issuance of notice by the Land Acquisition CollectorEffectPetitioner having not been paid any compensation of acquired land filed reference before the Land Acquisition CollectorLand Acquisition Collector while holding reference as time barred referred the same to the Referee Court

Respondent had returned the compensation so received by him to the extent of land of petitioner, and his name was deleted from the reference

Referee Court rejected the reference on the ground that compensation had been awarded to the petitioner

Validity

Nothing was on record that any notice under S. 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued to the petitioner

Limitation for filing reference would start from the date of knowledge of issuance of award

No specific method for filing reference under Ss. 30 & 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been provided

Provisions of Ss. 30 & 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not be considered in isolation of S.18 of the Act and vice versa

Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not limited to the re-determination of compensation amount rather it had provided only a mechanism to file an application to Land Acquisition Collector

Filing of reference itself was sufficient to construe protest within the purview of S.31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

If reference was barred by the provisions of S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 then same could not be referred to the Referee Court and Land Acquisition Collector was bound to dismiss the same in its entirety

Once reference was made to Referee Court, it could not deny to entertain the same on the ground of limitation

Impugned order passed by the Court below was set aside and matter was remanded to the Referee Court for decision in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2018 MLD 205 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 23 & 24Payment of compensationScope

Single Judge of High Court in constitutional petition passed order for payment of compensation to the land owners in lieu of land illegally taken over for construction of road

Validity

Respondents had purchased suit land by registered sale deed and mutation was sanctioned in the revenue record

Litigation with regard to land in question ultimately ended in favour of respondents up-to the Supreme Court

Road was constructed on the land in question without acquiring the same and without making any payment to the land owners

No Court or authority could be allowed to deny a vested right accrued in favour of respondents by the Supreme Court

Nothing was on record that any proceedings were initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire the land for the purpose of construction of the road

Every citizen had right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan

State could acquire land but not alien to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Authorities, without acquiring land and payment of compensation illegally and unlawfully took over the possession of land and built the road in question

Acquisition of land by the authorities had rightly been held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Authorities were directed to pay compensation forthwith to the respondents in lieu of land illegally taken over for construction of road

No illegality or perversity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by single Judge of the High Court which had been passed in consonance with the spirit of law

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in limine in circumstances.

2018 PLC 310 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 30Payment of compensationAppealLimitationCondonation of delayApplication filed by the workman for payment of compensation was allowedEmployer-company instead of moving appeal had filed constitutional petition before High Court

Contention of employer-company was that Managing Director had gone abroad and there was no guidance with regard to the proper forum

Validity

Presence of Managing Director of employer-company in the country or otherwise could not a cogent ground for bypassing statutory provision of appeal

Objection with regard to jurisdiction could in fact be agitated before the relevant appellate forum

Appellate authority could decide whether impugned order was void

High Court could not be approached to assume jurisdiction on account of the ground sourged

Ignorance of law was no defence

Appeal could be filed against the impugned order within sixty days from the date of said order

Employer company had failed to do so

Present constitutional petition was moved after four months of the impugned order

Appellate Court had power to condone any delay in filing of appeal if the same was satisfied that cogent ground existed for the grant of such relief

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PLC 158 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 46Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionGrievance petitionBank employeeRetrenchmentPayment of compensationPetitioner sought additional allowance on the basis of judgment of Supreme CourtScopeRespondent-Bank retrenched the employees and they were paid compensation

Contention of petitioners-employees was that they were entitled for additional compensation as per judgment passed by the Supreme Court

Validity

Respondent Bank agreed for payment of additional compensation to the retrenched employees

Supreme Court had passed the order on the basis of settlement between the parties

Said judgment of Supreme Court was not a judgment in rem but was in personam, therefore was attracted to the present case

Petitioners-employees had already received compensation after retrenchment order passed by the Bank

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2010 MLD 134 SUPREME-APPELATE-COURT-GILGIT Judicial Precedent

Arts.19-A, 27 & 45(2)Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855), S.1Fatal accidentSuo motu noticePayment of compensation

Four innocent young persons were travelling in a car on road during the night and while crossing the bridge when reached in the centre of bridge, their car due to the breakage in the bridge fell in the river, three of them lost their lives; whereas fourth one sustained serious injuries

Said accident was not due to fault of the victims, but they lost their lives due to negligence of public functionaries who were responsible to maintain the road and bridge

Degree of carelessness about the life of people was cruel and criminal

Matter relating to the right of life of the people in terms of Art.9 of Constitution of Pakistan read with Art.19-A of the Northern Areas Governance Order, 1994, was of public importance and Supreme Appellate Court exercising the power under Art.45(2) of Northern Areas Governance Order, 1994 was concerned to take cognizance of the matter

Careful examination of the statements of the witnesses had shown that on the day of incident, neither the road leading through bridge was closed for traffic nor any sign board that bridge was out of order, was put on the road

General Manager of National High Way Authority had not been able to bring on record any evidence in support of version that necessary precautions were taken to close the road for traffic to avoid any incident

Clipping of newspaper and statements of the witnesses, had clearly shown that the damage caused to the bridge concerned due to the breakage of its pillars, was well within the knowledge of National High Way Authority, but said Authority knowingly had omitted to block the road and close it for traffic, so much so that no sign board indicating "danger" was installed on the road on either side of the bridge to warn the public

Failure of Authority to take the precautionary measures for the safe journey on the road was a gross negligence for the purpose of civil as well as criminal liability and aggrieved persons at their choice could surely avail the appropriate remedy provided under the law

Suo motu notice was disposed of with direction that National Highway Authority would pay compensation in the sum of Rs. five lac for each deceased to his legal heirs and same amount to the injured and Authority would bear the expenses to the treatment of injured.

2009 CLC 338 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 11, 18, 23 & 54Acquisition of landPayment of compensationDetermination of value of acquired landCriterionReference to Referee CourtAppeal

Land of land owners was acquired and Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at Rs.846/26 per Marla which had not been accepted by the land owners and they filed Reference Petition under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Referee Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the data available on record enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,500 per Marla

Authorities being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the judgment of the Referee Court had filed regular first appeal

Validity

Site plan of the acquired piece of land would show that suit land was a levelled tract situated on main road and was not only commercial in nature, but also suitable for building sites

Evidence on record had fully proved that acquired tract of land was situated on the main metalled road and that major portion of frontage of disputed Khasra number, which touched the main road had been acquired from the land owners; in that situation high potential nature of the suit land was proved from the record of the case

.-Contention of the counsel for the authorities, that the acquired land was `Shah Nehri' as recorded in the revenue record and it should have been assessed by the Land Acquisition Court as `Shah Nehri', was without any substance for the reason that the land could be recorded as `Shah Nehri', but the court had to take into consideration the location of the land, the high potentiality of the same and its proximity to road to find out as to whether it could be utilized for building purposes

One year average was not always a true criterion for determination of the market value of the acquired land

Expropriate land owners should be paid the compensation and not the price of the acquired land and the location, proximity to road and its future use should always be taken into consideration

Market value of the property had always to be determined with respect to the location, potentiality and the transaction of the similar land at the time of notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Referee Court, in circumstances had rightly fixed the compensation of the acquired land to be Rs.3500 per Marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest

Judgment and decree of the Referee Court was based on sound judicial principles of law and the evidence had been scanned strictly in accordance with the established principles of appreciation of evidence, which called for no interference

Appeal was dismissed.

2008 PTD 1113 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 179, 179-A [as omitted by Finance Ordinance (XXX of 1979)] & 185-ADecision of Special Judge on meritsBinding forceExtent

Adjudicating Officer in respect of same subject-matter and evidence could not disagree with or ignore decision of Special Judge on merits

Where decision of Special Judge was made on any technical plea or for non-production of material evidence by prosecution, then, Adjudicating Officer, on the basis of such evidence, if admissible, could consider matter afresh by giving reasons for difference of opinion, if any

Principles.