Determination of compensation

2026 MLD 942 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.23Determination of compensationSalient features

(i) market value of land at the prevalent time and its potential; (ii) one year average of sale taken place before publication of notification under S.4 of the Act of the similar land; (iii) its likelihood of development and improvement; (iv) a willing purchaser would pay to a willing buyer in an open market arms length transaction entered into without any compulsion; (v) loss or injury occurred by severing of acquired land from other property of the land owner; (vi) loss or injury by change of residence or place of business and loss of profit; (vii) delay in the consummation of acquisition proceedings and; (viii) peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

2022 MLD 1393 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S.18Reference to CourtDetermination of compensationSimilarly placed land ownersScope

Question before Chief Court was whether the benefit which had accrued to the land owners who had filed reference in Referee Court and filed appeal in Chief Court for further enhancement of compensation vis-à-vis their acquired land could also be extended to the similarly placed land owners who had not filed any such reference or appeal in the Chief Court

Held; non-appealing land owners were also entitled to the same treatment which had been given by the appellate court to the similarly placed appealing land owners

Such would be unjust to deprive the non-appealing land owners from receiving benefit of the judgment merely for the reason that they had not filed reference or appeal

Legal and moral obligation cast on the authorities not to grudge payment of compensation to non-appealing land owners according to the rate judicially determined for the land in question

Writ petition was allowed.

2019 CLCN 10 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 18, 23 & 4Reference to courtDetermination of compensationFactors to be considered

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 3,25,000/- per kanal to Rs. 10,00,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Court while determining the compensation amount of the land in dispute must ascertain the market value on the date of notification issued under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, one year's average price of land and other factors including the locality where same was situated

Acquired land should be compared to adjacent land and its potentiality and improvement was also necessary factors for determination of compensation

Adjacent land to the land in question had been acquired and the compensation of the same was assessed as Rs. 17,00,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Collector Land Acquisition had admitted in award that one year's average price of the Mouza was Rs. 21,24,706/- per kanal

No justification existed to fix or assess the compensation amount less than said price

Contesting authorities had failed to produce any cogent evidence to discharge their onus of rebuttal

Evidence adduced by the land owners remained un-rebutted which was to be considered an admission on the part of the authorities, in circumstances

Land owners had succeeded to prove their case through cogent evidence

Market price of acquired land was not less than Rs. 21,24,706/- per kanal, in circumstances

Impugned judgment was modified in the terms that land owners were entitled to receive Rs. 21,24,706/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2018 CLC 1445 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 18 & 23Acquisition of landDetermination of compensationCourt, duty of

Material taken into account by Collector for making his determination about compensation cannot be considered by Referee Court till such time it is duly proved before it

Referee Court does not act as an appellate Court charged with function of affirming or reversing findings of Collector which form the basis of award rather it has to apply its independent mind in arriving at the amount of compensation to be awarded to complaining party.

2017 YLR 2272 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.23Determination of compensationMarket valueScope

Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provided a set of guidelines in various matters for taking into account at the time of determination of compensation

Market value was one of such matters to be considered by the collector or referee court which meant that the price which a willing purchaser would have paid for the land to a willing seller.

2016 CLCN 87 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4 & 18Acquisition of landDetermination of compensationEnhancement of compensation amount by referee courtValidity

In view of extraordinary hike in landed property, criteria of one year average could not be made basis of compensation for acquired land

Individuals sacrificing land in public interest needed to be adequately compensated

Compensation should be fixed in the light of criteria of (price acceptable/agreeable to) a willing vendor and needy (genuine) vendee

Report of local commission was rightly relied by referee court

Amount enhanced by referee court was maintained

Appeal filed by provincial government was dismissed.

2015 GBLR 154 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 10, 11, 18 & 23Acquisition of landDetermination of compensationReference to Court

Claim of petitioner/landowner whose land was acquired for construction of school, was that his land was adjacent to the land of two other persons near main road; that Revenue Field Staff assessed the price of land of the petitioner at Rs.60,000 per kanal whereas land of other person (adjacent) was assessed at Rs.1,20,000 per kanal, despite the lands were situated at the same place, such land, though had potential value, but was assessed at the lower price

Land Acquisition Judge, on reference, granted relief to the petitioner, partially and dismissed the reference

Petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Land Acquisition Judge, filed appeal before the Chief Court, which also granted partial relief to the petitioner to the extent of compound interest from the date of acquiring land till the date of possession; but declined to enhance the rate of land as prayed for by the petitioner

Petitioner had prayed that he could be compensated equally amongst the equals

Advocate-General had contended that judgment passed by Chief Court and the Referee Judge, were illegal and unjustified and were liable to be set aside

Advocate General had submitted that petitioner had gifted 5 kanals and 2 marlas barren land for construction of the school and that none of the persons, whose land was included by the Committee in the school construction had raised objection against the award of the Collector, except the petitioner, who despite of obtaining employment and compensation had filed reference petition in the court against the award

Validity

Petitioner along with others had manouvred and succeeded with the collusion of Revenue Field Staff, obtained award and compensation of his barren land at the rate of Rs.60,000 per kanal

Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and disposed of with the modification i.e., the impugned judgment passed by Chief Court to the extent of the compound interest payable to the petitioner at 8% per annum (from the date of acquisition of land to the payment of award only), by agreeing with the judgment in reference passed by the Referee Court.

2015 MLD 913 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.23, 30, 4 & 54Acquisition of landDetermination of compensationCriteria

Appellant impugned order of Referee Court on the ground that the Court while dealing with the issue of compensation, did not take into consideration the provisions of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after acquisition of the appellant's land

Held, that per S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Court while awarding compensation had to take into regard market value of the land on date of publication of notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the damage sustained by the person by the reason of any standing crop or trees; damage if any, sustained by way of severance of land; the damage, if any, sustained by a person at time of taking of possession of land by the Collector by reason that acquisition affected his other property or his earning

Person, if in consequence of the acquisition of his land, was compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expense incidental to such change and damage resulting from diminution of profits was also to be taken into consideration

In addition to the market value of the land, the Referee Court under S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 also had to award 25% of such market value compensation in case such acquisition had been made for the public purpose

Referee Court, in the present case, had not taken into consideration the criteria provided under S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the impugned order was therefore not passed in accordance with law

High Court set aside impugned order and remanded the matter to the Referee Court for decision afresh on the question of compensation

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

2012 SCMR 1201 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 23 & 4Determination of compensation"Date of publication of notification", connotation

Appellant Development Authority assailed orders of the High Court whereby the compensation determined by the Reference Court for land acquired by the Development Authority, was upheld

Validity

Reference Court after considering the facts found that one third value of the small developed plot should be deducted towards development cost to arrive at the value of the acquired land, and the High Court did not interfere with said findings and therefore, no reason could be found to alter said percentage of deduction

Land Acquisition Officer, if in anticipation of acquisition had made any payment to a landowner; they would be entitled to credit therefor with interest from the date of payment to the date of publication of preliminary notification under S.4 of the Act

Rise in market value after publication of notification under S.4(1) of the Act should not be taken into account for the purpose of determination of compensation

­Words "date of publication of notification" used in S.23(1) "would refer to the date of publication of notification in the Gazette and was different to the context in which the said words were used in S.4(1) of the Act

Appeal was allowed partly and compensation was reduced in view of the findings recorded by the Supreme Court.

2012 SCMR 1179 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 23, 18, 4 & 54Determination of compensation

Land Acquisition Officer (Appellant) assailed orders of the High Court whereby in the appeal filed by the respondents, the compensation for the respondents was enhanced from Rupees 10,000 per acre (as determined by the Reference Court) to Rupees 75,000 per acre

Contention of the Land Acquisition Officer was that the High Court did not appreciate the evidence on record and based its findings on sale deeds of small pieces of land which were sold in the area, which did not reflect the correct market value

Validity

Notification under S.4 of the Act was issued in on 18-2-1987 and therefore the market vale existing near about the said date was to be determined and assessed

High Court had failed to indicate as to how the findings of the Reference Court were unreasonable and enhanced compensation without any appreciation of record and without considering the findings of the Reference Court

High Court was to have given reasons for its disagreement with the findings of the Reference Court which, in the present case, was not done and instead it arrived at an abrupt decision of raising the compensation to Rupees 75,000 per acre

Findings of fact arrived by the Reference Court could not have been interfered with by the High Court on surmises and conjectures

High Court had proceeded on the wrong notion that sale deeds of small pieces of land could be the determining factor for compensation as said sale deeds were of land which was not even equivalent to one decimal of the land acquired; and the same tantamount to misreading of evidence on record and misinterpretation of legal propositions

Supreme Court set aside impugned order of High Court and remanded the case to the High Court for decision afresh on the appeal with the direction to give proper findings based on the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

2012 SCMR 1140 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 23 & 18Determination of compensation

Land Acquisition Officer (Appellant) assailed orders of the High Court whereby in the appeal filed by the respondents, the compensation for the respondents was enhanced

Land Acquisition Officer contended that land was agricultural land and no conversion charges were to be paid to convert the same into non-agricultural land

Validity

Land ceased to be agricultural land and was capable of being used as a residential or industrial site as was determined concurrently by the courts below

Land Acquisition Officer did not challenge said finding of Reference Court in appeal, and therefore, could not question the same

Land was situated adjacent to residential locality and was in the midst of a highly developed industrial locality and was capable of being used for non-agricultural purposes and should, therefore, be considered as non-agricultural land in determination of compensation

Appeal was dismissed.

2012 CLC 1212 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 23Acquisition of landDetermination of compensationCriteria for fixation of market valueProvisions of S.23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not the sole criteria for fixation of market value

Factor of potential and future value of the acquired land had also to be kept in mind while determining the compensation of the acquired property

Escalation of price between the period of publication of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the announcement of award, was yet another aspect of the case

Delay of two or three years between the two dates, had been considered as a factor for enhancing the compensation and even the inflationary trend and depreciation in the currency of the country, between the two dates, could not be ignored.

2011 SCMR 1244 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 23Determination of compensation

Factors requiring consideration stated.