Reference to Court

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount of acquired land from Rs. 100/- per sq. feet to Rs. 300/- per sq. feet along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Acquired land was situated near the road which was not only important for commercial purpose but for residential as well

Land Acquisition Collector had based his award on the average price for a period of one year

Criteria of one year average could not be made basis for assessment of compensation amount of acquired land

Land had been acquired in the interest of general public and compensation should be fixed in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee

Compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in its award was not according to legal and equitable criteria

Compensation amount of Rs. 300/- per sq. feet demanded by the landowner was proper, in circumstances

Land Acquisition Collector had not considered the record properly produced by the landowner

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below were in accordance with law and in consonance with evidence available on record

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents / landowners being dissatisfied with the compensation preferred a Reference and Referee Court enhanced the compensation

Validity

Respondents / landowners were debarred to file Reference claiming enhancement of compensation as they did not record any protest at the time of receipt of compensation

Documentary evidence was produced on behalf of respondents / landowners by their counsel in his statement whereas it was mandatory requirement of law that documents relied upon should be produced in evidence by the party in its own statement so that the adverse party could have a fair opportunity to cross-examine the same

Documents produced by respondents / landowners lacked intrinsic value and such documents were validly excluded from consideration

High Court set aside compensation fixed by Referee Court and dismissed Reference filed by respondents / landowners

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Conditions mentioned under sections 18 to 21 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') have to be fulfilled before the Collector is empowered to make the reference, and then alone the Court has any jurisdiction to entertain the reference

Matter (of landowner seeking enhancement for compensation of his land) goes to Court only upon a reference made by the Collector

It is only after such a reference is made that the Court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award

In fact, it is the order of reference which provides the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the objections referred to it

Section 18(1) of the Act does not authorise or permit or provide for a person aggrieved, to make an application directly to the Court.

Respondent / complainant invoked jurisdiction of Ombudsperson with regard to property in question which was already the subject matter of civil suit pending before Civil Court of competent jurisdiction

During pendency of civil suit, the Ombudsperson allowed complaint in favour of respondent / complainant

Validity

Provision of S.6 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2019, is non-obstante clause and has superimposing effect over remaining provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2019

Ombudsperson is bound to refer parties to Civil Court through a reference, where recording of evidence for settlement of issues between the parties is essential

Civil suit with respect to same property and for same relief was already pending where many disputed and contesting objections were raised by appellants regarding subject property which was not a legacy rather was a purchased property

Ombudsperson, under the mandate of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2019 should have sent a reference to Civil Court where suit between parties was already pending

Ombudsperson wrongly proceeded with the complaint of respondent / complainant and passed order in question

High Court directed the parties to pursue remedy before Civil Court and set aside order passed by Ombudsperson

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Plenary jurisdiction of Civil Court stands on much higher footing as compared to any other Court or authority or office including any proceedings before Ombudsperson

Jurisdiction of Ombudsperson is limited only to cases involving rights of women who are not contesting and the matter does not require any detailed probe, investigation or recording of evidence.

Petitioners/land owners were aggrieved of order passed by Land Acquisition Collector declining to transmit their Reference under S. 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to Referee Court on the plea that it was filed beyond six months

Validity

If award was announced in presence of person interested (or his authorized representative), such person has to make application within six weeks from the date of Collector's award itself

If award is not made in presence of person interested (or his authorized representative) but served with notice of pronouncement of award under S. 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he has to make application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of such notice

If person interested (or his representative) is not present when award is made and if he does not receive notice under S. 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from the Collector, he has to make application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of award

If the person interested is not present at the time of announcement of Award but he receives a notice under S. 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he can not claim benefit of the provision of six months for making the application on the ground that date of receipt of notice under S. 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the date of knowledge of contents of award, rather he has to file reference within six weeks after receipt of notice under S. 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Petitioners were not provided copies of the Award and they finally applied for the same through filing an application dated 19-04-2018 under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2013, and thereafter petitioners got acquainted with Award in question

Petitioners presented Reference under S. 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 04-06-2018 which was well within a period of six months from the date of knowledge of the contents of award

High Court directed Land Acquisition Collector to transmit Reference of petitioners to Referee Court

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Collector referred the matter under S.30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to District Judge for the determination of ownership of land

Validity

Claim of the present appellant was that an area of approximately 2.60 acres owned by his father was acquired by WAPDA for which no compensation was paid

Record showed that the father of appellant expired in the year 1996, whereas, admittedly, the land was acquired in the years 1974, 1985 and 1989

Moot question would be as to why his father, who was alive at the relevant time, never came forward to claim any compensation for the acquired land

Appellant never lodged any claim nor came forward before any of the authorities including the Land Acquisition Officer during the entire proceedings, and instead had chosen to avail the remedy of a complaint before the Ombudsman which otherwise, covered by a special law, was never available

Mere statement to the effect that no notice was ever served would not suffice

Appellant had though deposed that he even objected to the amount of compensation and availed the remedy of a Reference under S.18 of the Act, before the Land Acquisition Officer; however, nothing had been placed on record to justify such factual assertion

How such a Reference was filed and what happened in those proceedings, the entire record was silent, whereas, appellant had also failed to assist in any manner on such aspect of the matter

Deposition of appellant reflected that he was not even aware that as to when and from whom the land in question was purchased by his father

Further, whether the seller was by himself a bona fide allottee or not was also unclear

Admittedly, the entire piece of land, the one which had been acquired, and even the remaining which had not been acquired was owned by Agricultural Department

Though a claim had been made that it was allotted by the Colonization Officer; however, no allotment papers had been produced in evidence

Even in the documents referred in the examination in chief which were purportedly filed with the Land Acquisition Officer in its reference under S.18 of the Act, there was no mention of any allotment of the land

In fact the appellant's case was that it was a purchased land, whereas, reliance had been placed on a mutation entry dated 6.3.1990

Per settled law the original ownership of the person from whom the title was being derived had to be proved and only then the subsequent ownership or for that matter the mutation entries could be looked into

Mutation entry was not a document of title, and it by itself did not confer any right, title or interest, and the burden of proof laid upon the person, in whose favor it was mutated to establish the validity and genuineness of transfer in his/her favor

If the foundation was illegal and defective then entire structure built on such foundation, having no value in the eyes of law, would fall on the ground

Moreover, the mutation entry in question was of the year 1990, whereas, as per the award, the land in Survey No.158 was acquired on 1.3.1974; in Survey No. 160 on 12.10.1989 and in Survey No.199 on 28.10.1985; hence, the same was even of no help to the case of the appellant

Per settled law when Government acquired immovable property under the Land Acquisition Act, it was for the person claiming compensation to establish his title affirmatively

To support claims to lands acquired under S.30 of the Act, the claimants must show title or in the absence of title deeds effective occupation

Nothing to that effect had been placed on record in the present case

Record showed that the entire land was in the name of Agriculture Department, and even if it was allotted to someone, that was without any No Objection Certificate from them, whereas, since the first acquisition in 1974 till the year 2000, the appellant was in deep sleep and never contested the matter at any forum until he approached the office of the Ombudsman

In that case the claim, if any, was too late in the day, even if no limitation applied; whereas, the father, the actual purchaser of the land as claimed, never came forward to seek any compensation, though at that point of time he was alive

Appellant had failed to establish and prove his claim regarding ownership of land in question

Appeal was dismissed, accordingly.

Respondents had produced property dealers, survey officer who had conducted the survey of the land, whereas in rebuttal the appellants had not recorded statement on oath in order to rebut the contention of the respondents

Neither the application nor the reply could be considered as evidence without appearance of parties in court and verification thereof

Collector had not mentioned anywhere in the award that the acquired land was considered either as commercial or non-commercial land

Appellants had admitted that the acquired land was adjacent to petrol pump, hotel, bank and women university

Trial Court had rightly assessed the value of the land

Appeal was dismissed.

After a reference is sent by the Collector, a court, as defined in section 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acts as a transferee-cum-delegatee

Under established judicial principles, it is not authorized to further delegate its functions or authority

As a special law enacted with a specific objective to deal with acquisition cases, all functionaries performing their duties under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are bound by its provisions

Referee Judge to whom the reference is sent by the Collector is not authorized to delegate or pass on its jurisdiction or function to any other court, person, or authority.

Petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the respondent claiming ownership of the suit land; claimed that the suit land was acquired for construction of a road; that award was prepared in the name of respondent; that the compensation was paid to the respondent and that the respondent be directed by the Court to deposit the amount of award in the Court

Respondent filed an application under S.10, C.P.C. before the Trial Court with the contention that a case regarding the quantum of compensation under the award was sub judice before the Supreme Appellate Court

Trial Court stayed the suit and appeal against such order was dismissed

Validity

Object of providing S.10, C.P.C. was to avoid divergent judgments and opinions of different Courts regarding similar matter

Trial Court, First Appellate Court and Chief Court had also given their findings regarding the disputed land and now the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Appellate Court

No irregularity and illegality was found in the orders passed by courts below

Writ petition was dismissed.

Petitioner sought enhanced rate of compensation of structural value of his bungalow which was being acquired for the purpose of widening of a bypass

Validity

Claim of the petitioner was only for compensation of structural value of the bungalow for which petitioner had alternate remedy under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Constitutional petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed.

Non-appealing affected land owners are also entitled to the same treatment which had been offered by the Court to similarly placed appealing parties.

Settlement of land was not carried on in the area acquired through the award, therefore, revenue record was not available

Job of the Acquiring Agency was further complicated by the fact that they could not find even a single registered deed regarding sale of any property in the revenue estates

Acquiring agency had based its determination of rates on the Rate Reasonability Certificate

Sale deeds produced in different cases were not relied upon by the Referee Court as the sale deeds were executed much after the date of award

Referee Court had appointed a local commission for local investigations, who had accordingly submitted his reports

Approach of the Referee Court was justified as there was no other reliable evidence before him

Local Commission, summoned by the Court, was examined and cross-examined but nothing was extracted from him, which could have vitiated the authenticity of his reports or propriety of the proceedings conducted during the course of local investigations

Determination of rate of compensation made by the Acquiring Agency was not based on proper appraisal of market rate

Naib Tehsildar had himself not based his report on any data or any evidence to that effect but had rather conducted a subjective assessment

High Court had earlier dismissed appeals of the Acquiring Agency arising out of one and same award whereby enhancement of rates by the Referee Judge made in similar manner were under challenge as such, present appeals deserved similar treatment

Appeals were dismissed.

Report of local commission revealed that the acquired land was situated at the main road; that the acquired land was situated near populated area as well as commercial area; that due to acquisition, the land of appellants was bifurcated into different parts and was no longer cultivable and that the rent of land was Rs. 50,000/- per acre

Girdwar of the procuring agency during cross-examination had admitted that the land of the appellants was situated at the main road

Land Acquisition Collector and Land Acquisition Officer had also admitted that the acquired land was one kilometer away from Abadi Deh

Evidence produced by appellants was enough to shift the onus on the procuring agency

Procuring agency had failed to justify their stance by necessary proof

Referee Court had failed to discharge its function in accordance with law

Appellants were declared entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.35,00,000/- per acre along with 15% compulsory charges and simple interest @ 8% from the date of possession till payment of compensation

Appeal was allowed.

Reference application is an independent, original proceeding for determination of the compensation afresh on the basis of the material produced and proved before the Referee Court by the parties

After institution of the reference application it is duty of the procuring agency to provide information on the basis of which the compensation was determined and then to prove it through confidence inspiring evidence

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

Section 18 provides an opportunity to a person to raise grounds and objections with regard to award and cast duty upon the Referee Court to determine the compensation of the land which is subject matter of the acquisition

To achieve such purpose the evidence as a whole of both the parties should be considered.

Procedure of acquisition starts when a notification under S. 4 is issued notifying the land required for a public purpose and inviting objections

Objection to such acquisition may be made by any person having interest in the property and the hearing is granted on the objections, if any, raised under S. 5-A whereas the determination that the land is required for public purpose is done by issuing declaration in the notification in terms of S. 6

Section 11 postulates the enquiry and passing of the award by the Collector and while doing so, it requires the Collector to determine (i) the true area of the land (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation amongst all the persons known or believed having interest in the land, of whom or of whose claim, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him

Section 12 states that the award of the Collector shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the person interested, in respect of the amount of compensation

Award is merely an offer to tender the compensation to the owner of the property and if the offer is not acceptable, S. 18 of the Act grants the owner of the land a statutory remedy for seeking determination of the amount of compensation from the Court by filing reference before the Collector

Assessment of compensation is made in the light of S. 23 which stipulates guiding principles for the Courts to consider the compensation on the move of a person who has an interest in the acquired land and is aggrieved of the compensation determined and settled through award.

Existing status and future potential of the acquired land found support from an un-rebutted, rather admitted officially prepared document relating to award of compensation in connection with another acquired land for construction of a project

Referee Court had correctly based enhancement upon valuation of other acquired land in same vicinity located not too far from the subject land of instant lis

Appellant had not only remained unable to dislodge said finding of fact with any reliable record, but had also been unable to bring on record any other document leading inference of Court with regard to market value of acquired subject land other than so assessed by the Referee Court

Appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Contention of appellant was that entering into an agreement as well as after having received amount of compensation struck therein, the respondent was left with no locus standi to retreat from his act to step ahead for institution of reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Contention of respondent was that the agreement was forcibly executed

Validity

Bare reading of proviso to subsection (2) of S. 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 revealed that the Act did not provide any particular mode, manner and method of protest by a claimant at the time of receipt of amount of compensation, awarded under S. 11, hence, the protest could be made either in writing or through reference under S.18

Section 31(4) clearly demonstrated that for payment of compensation of acquired land to interested party, only Collector concerned was competent to execute any contract while in the case in hand, the agreement was executed between the respondent and an Army official who was not competent to execute the same

Requirement of making agreement with the Collector was a mandatory requirement

Appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Respondents acquired 8 marlas 6 sarsai commercial land of the appellant for extension and widening of a highway in December, 2007 but awarded compensation amount to the owner at non-commercial rates

Compensation amount was partially paid to the appellant in February, 2015

Appellant was not given the whole compensation amount under the impugned award till date

Appellant was entitled to 8% compound interest with effect from the date of judgment of the Trial Court till final payment of the compensation amount

Appellant had failed to refer to any evidence which was non-read or misread by the Referee Court whereby his claim of grant of compound interest at the rate of 40% of compensation and enhancement of rate of two trees was declined

Likewise, the respondents had failed to disprove the claim of the appellant by any stretch of law and evidence to interfere in the impugned judgment, therefore, the cross-appeal filed by respondents was dismissed

Appeals were disposed of accordingly.

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.

Collector Land Acquisition had failed to determine fair compensation and award was based on the average price for a period of one year

Validity

Criteria of one year average could not be made basis for assessment of compensation amount of acquired land

Land had been acquired for the interest of general public at public expense

Landlord was to be compensated in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee

Compensation assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition was on the lower side and was not based on actual market rate

Collector Land Acquisition while passing award had not considered the location of the land which had been acquired and had awarded meager amount of compensation

Compensation awarded by the Referee Court was neither exaggerated nor exorbitant

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below was in accordance with law

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Referee Judge, in absence of any material had considered the date of announcement of award as date of taking over possession of suit land

Compensation was to be determined according to market rate of land prevailing at the time of taking over possession

Prices of adjacent lands were substantial factors to determine market value of acquired land

Potential prospects, future use of land and its commercial and residential activities were also to be taken into account while determining compensation

Local commission was to be appointed to determine market value prevailing at the time of taking over possession of acquired land

Impugned judgment was set aside by the High Court and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to appoint local commission for determination of market value of suit property

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 2,800/- to Rs. 125,000/- per marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges but refused 6% interest on excess amount determined by the Court

Validity

Collector Land Acquisition was bound to deposit excess amount before Referee Court as determined by the said Court

If excess amount was deposited then no interest should be levied on the excess amount but in case of failure of Collector Land Acquisition or beneficiary of acquisition to deposit the excess amount before Referee Court they could not be absolved from payment of interest thereon

Payment of interest under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was discretionary and Court might pass an order by exercising discretion judiciously

When amount of compensation had not been paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land then Collector Land Acquisition should pay the amount awarded with simple interest thereon @ 6% per annum from taking possession until it had been paid or deposited

When compensation amount had been enhanced by the Referee Court and same had not been paid or deposited in the Court then 6% interest per annum from the time of taking possession until it was paid or deposited should be paid to the land owners

Enhanced compensation amount in the present case had neither been paid to the land owners nor same had been deposited in the Referee Court

Land owners were entitled for the receipt of 6% interest per annum on the excess compensation amount from the date of taking over possession till same had been either paid or deposited in the Referee Court

Impugned judgment to the extent of declining 6% interest on excess amount of compensation determined by the Referee Court was set aside in circumstances

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Market value of suit property at the time of its acquisition had been determined by the local commission as Rs. 85,000/- per kanal

Average price of adjacent lands had upward trend in the price

Acquired property was a valuable chunk of land

High Court observed that word 'compensation' and not the word 'market value' has been used in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for payment of price of land to the affected landowners

Compensation of acquired land should not be less than the market value

Suit property had been acquired against the will of landowner and its compensation should not be less than market value prevailing at the time of acquisition

Compensation should always be that amount on which a seller was ready to sell his land and same should not be much or less than market value

Referee Judge had enhanced compensation as Rs. 20,000/- per kanal in view of one year average price by keeping aside the report of local commission

Trial Court had erred in holding that local commission had assessed the market value of property between Rs. 2 million to Rs. 5.5 million per kanal which was the rate of land twenty five years after acquisition

Referee Judge had failed to comprehend the report of local commission wherein besides present rates of land prevailing at the time of acquisition had also been mentioned

Parties had failed to shatter the opinion of local commission which was according to on-spot position of land in question

Market price of acquired land as Rs. 85,000/- per kanal as suggested by the local commission was justified and without any exception

Claim of landlord for fixing the rate of compensation as Rs. 500,000/- per kanal was without any backing

Compensation of acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 85,000/- per kanal and impugned judgment was modified to that extent

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Court, upon declaring objections valid, is relieved of its duty to take further proceedings in the matter and parties also stand discharged from further hassle.

Matter was argued by the appellant with two contentions; one of the contentions was with regard to making assessment of enhancement; and the second was with regard to enhancement of compulsory acquisition charges from 15% to 25%

Validity

Appellant could not refer to any piece of evidence which was misread or misconstrued

Purpose for which the land was acquired was the determining factor for ascertaining compulsory acquisition charges

If the purpose was public in nature, then such compulsory acquisition charges would be payable at the rate of 15% even if such acquisition was for a company, however, when the land was acquired simpliciter for a company for its private use only then the compulsory acquisition charges would be payable at the rate of 25%

Appeals being devoid of merit were dismissed with modification in compulsory acquisition charges from 25% to 15%.

Land Acquisition Collector assailed judgment and decree passed by Referee Court whereby reference petition was accepted and the compensation was enhanced

Contention of appellant, Land Acquisition Collector was that while enhancing compensation, the mutations pertaining to the year 2001 were taken into consideration whereas the notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 2000

Validity

Not only the market value at the time of notification could be considered but also the potential value had to be kept in view, therefore, the Referee Court had not committed any illegality and irregularity while considering the referred mutations

Trial Court had also considered that the award was announced after four years of the issuance of notification

Appeal was dismissed.

Factors to be taken into consideration by the Court enumerated.

Appellant/ land-owner sought enhancement to the extent of the price of the land-in-question assessed by the District Price Assessment Committee

Held, that when a party was interested in enhancement of the compensation, he owed a duty to discharge the burden by procuring convincing , trustworthy and solid evidence for the said purpose

Potential value of the property could not be determined on the basis of mere oral assertion on behalf of the land owner

Record revealed that documents exhibited/produced by the appellant in his evidence, included the report of District Price Assessment Committee and the Valuation Table prepared by the concerned District Collector 4/5 years before the award, however, the same was prepared for the purposes of computation of ad-valorem stamp duty only

Oral assertion made by the appellant, therefore, was not sufficient to outwit the documentary evidence produced by authorities which were documents/mutations/sale deeds related to urban as well as rural lands surrounding the acquired land of the appellant sold at the relevant time or preceding year

Khasra Girdawries of the previous 4/5 years showed that the land-in-question was still agricultural and even the remaining land of the appellant was being cultivated and the appellant admitted the said fact in cross-examination during his evidence

Appellant had not produced any evidence that the status of land was changed from agricultural to commercial or urban, whereas the respondents had established, by leading documentary evidence, that the land-in-question was agricultural in nature

Evidence also showed that Board of Revenue, through special Committee, inspected the spot and assessed the compensation keeping in view the average sale price of the area

Price of the land-in-question, as assessed by the District Price Assessment Committee, was not based on independent inspection of the spot and the same was founded on the valuation table prepared by the concerned District Collector 4/5 years ago, which was prepared only for the purpose of calculation of ad-valorem Stamp Duty, whereas Board of Revenue had fixed the compensation in accordance with law

Appellant could not point out any mala fide on the part of Board of Revenue in determining the compensation as declared in award-in-question

No bar existed on Board of Revenue to assess the reasonability of the compensation assessed by the District Price Assessment Committee

Appellant had failed to rebut the documentary evidence produced by the authorities showing that the adjacent land was higher in price than awarded to him by the authorities through issuance of award

Man could tell a lie a document could not and to outdo a documentary proof, better and cogent evidence in shape of document had to be produced, which was lacking in the present case on the behalf of appellant

Record further revealed that the appellant had received the compensation more than his entitlement

Referee Court had rightly decided the issue by taking into the consideration facts and circumstances in assessing the compensation of acquired land

Board of Revenue after spot inspection had rightly assessed the compensation of the acquired land

No illegality had been committed by the Trial Court which had judiciously exercised its jurisdiction vested to it after examining record and appreciating law on the subject

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs.350,000/- per marla to Rs.650,000/- per marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest of the compensation amount starting from the date of taking over possession of acquired land till its realization

Validity

Landowners were bound to prove their claim through concrete and unimpeachable evidence; they had not produced sale deeds of the land adjacent to the acquired land

Sale deeds produced were with regard to distant land which were not helpful to prove the value of acquired land

No visual site plan was produced to substantiate the stance of landowners they should have produced the shajrah aks parcha or any valid document to prove location of acquired property but no such material evidence was available on record

Variation of a few feet in the location of property did change the value of land

Mere opinion of an expert without support of any documentary evidence could not by itself be considered enough for enhancement of compensation

Landowners were bound to mention the details of their property with supporting documents but same had not been done in the reference

Market value of the property was to be assessed from one existing in the preceding year of the date of issuance of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not from the date of pronouncement of award

Landowners had failed to prove the exact price as well as location of acquired land through tangible evidence

Party approaching the Court for grant of relief should have discharged the burden of proving his claim and it had to stand on its own legs

Referee Court had enhanced compensation merely on assumption and against the available record which was not in field

Findings recorded by the Trial Court were reversed and enhancement of compensation so determined was declared illegal

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner sought direction from High Court under writ jurisdiction to the authorities to pay compound interest on the compensation amount at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of taking possession of acquired land till payment of its compensation amount

Validity

Petitioners had not annexed any record/document regarding actual date of taking possession of their land by the authorities

Said date could not be determined by the Chief Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction

Writ petition, being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mere tendering of sale-deeds in evidence was not sufficient until and unless landowner had not proved that acquired land was location-wise similar and its nature, kind or potential value was same as that of the land sold through produced sale-deeds

Landowner, in the present case, had not substantiated that the acquired land and the land sold through sale-deeds tendered in evidence was having same location and nature

Compensation could not be enhanced on the basis of such sale-deeds, in circumstances

Referee Judge had properly appreciated the record and had not committed any illegality

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Respondents claimed ownership of certain survey numbers of land acquired by the acquiring agency and alleged that mutation was also attested in favour of their predecessor on the basis of registered sale deed, however, the revenue record was destroyed in the liberation war and that the names of predecessors of appellants were wrongly entered in the revenue record as owners

Referee Judge dismissed the reference for want of proof, however, the High Court allowed the appeal

Validity

Original sale deed was produced by the respondents before the Referee Judge and perusal of the same revealed that mutations were attested on its basis

None of the attesting witnesses of the sale deed were alive, therefore, it was difficult to produce those witnesses before the Referee Judge

Sale deed was a registered document and had also come from proper custody, therefore, High Court had rightly accepted the same on the touchstone laid down in Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which postulated that where a document was 30 years old and was also produced from proper custody, it would be presumed to have been executed properly

Revenue record pertaining to the villages was destroyed in the liberation war

Subsequent record had no presumption of truth which was maintained by the revenue officials only for day to day business, however, in the recent settlement, the respondents had not got entered the sale deed but the same did not affect their title

Sale deed which was duly registered in accordance with law could not be refused to be acknowledged merely on the ground of delay

Fact that the appellants had not claimed any enhancement of the compensation either by filing a reference before the High Court also led to the conclusion that they by their conduct had admitted the ownership of the respondents over the said land

Dispute regarding the question of title could be resolved by the Referee Judge

Landowner could not be deprived of fair compensation where the land was acquired compulsorily

Supreme Court, while considering the documentary evidence and other circumstances, enhanced the compensation

Appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Dispute regarding the question of title can be resolved by the Referee Judge.

Landowner cannot be deprived of the fair compensation where the land is acquired compulsorily.

Appellant assailed order of High Court whereby it accepted the appeal of landowners and enhanced the compensation amount

Validity

Collector Land Acquisition assessed the compensation on the basis of building replacement cost valuation prepared by a joint team of Civil Engineers constituted by the concerned authorities

Landowners in support of their claim had brought on record the estimates of the acquired land prepared by a government contractor

Contractor had got recorded his statement as a witness and had supported his estimate whereas the authorities had failed to bring on record any evidence to justify the amount assessed by the joint team of Civil Engineers

High Court had declined to consider the estimates produced by the landowners on the sole ground that Supreme Court (AJ&K) in 'Qurban Hussain, and others v. WAPDA, etc.' [2017 SCR 524] had held that the estimate prepared by a private person/engineer could not be relied upon safely however Supreme Court (AJ&K) in 'WAPDA v. Muhammad Ismail' [Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2018, decided on 22.03.2018] had held that in Qurban Hussain's case, it had not relied upon the estimate prepared by the private person and had given preference to the building replacement cost valuation prepared by the joint team of Civil Engineers, which did not mean that if the Civil Engineers of the joint team prepared a wrong estimate in any case, the courts would blindly follow the same merely on the strength of findings recorded in Qurban Hussain's case

High Court was not justified to discard the evidence on the strength of the findings recorded in Qurban Hussain's case

Judgment of the High Court was self-contradictory, as on the one hand High Court discarded the evidence produced by the landowners but on the other hand enhanced the amount of compensation

Case was remanded to the High Court with direction to decide the same afresh.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 52,000/- per marla to Rs. 77,917/- per marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Market value of suit land had been settled through negotiation between the parties

Landowner could not claim the compensation more than what he had agreed to receive

When landlord had made a claim to compensation pursuant to any notice given under S. 9 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 then the amount awarded to him by the Referee Court was not to exceed the amount so claimed

Landlord had already received more amount than his claim and case for further enhancement had not been made out

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Witnesses produced on behalf of landowners had stated that value of acquired land was not less than Rs.3,00,000/- per kanal

Authorities had not cross-examined the said witnesses on the point of market value of suit property

Evidence led by the land owners had not been rebutted on behalf of authorities

Referee Judge had rightly determined compensation of acquired land

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners assailed order of High Court whereby their appeal was dismissed and the order of Referee Judge was maintained

Land-owner had tendered in evidence, copies of sale deeds and had also produced oral evidence

Evidence produced by land-owner had remained un-rebutted because the petitioners had failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal

Acquired land was situated in the town area and nature of the land was commercial

Market value, according to evidence, was much higher and the Referee Judge after proper appreciation of evidence and consideration of documentary evidence had adequately enhanced compensation of acquired land which was neither arbitrary nor against the record

Courts below had not committed any illegality while handing down the impugned judgment

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provided limitation period for filing the reference before the Collector and not to the Court

When the Collector had made the reference to the court then the question of limitation became redundant and could not be gone into by the referee court

Reference was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to decide the same on merits

Appeal was allowed.

Collector Land Acquisition while fixing the rate of compensation had failed to properly observe the correct market value of the property

Potential value of property was to be considered in addition to the market value of the land at the time of passing the award

Collector Land Acquisition had failed to consider that property was commercial in nature rather he had mostly relied on the revenue record

Average sales of last one year was not conclusive proof for determination of market value of the land, while assessing the market value of land its location and potentiality was also to be considered

Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment had rightly observed that compensation amount was not properly assessed and fixed by the Collector Land Acquisition

Referee Judge had rightly fixed the amount of compensation and awarded 15% compulsory acquisition charges as land had been acquired compulsorily

Landowner had waived his right to the extent of compulsory acquisition charges and he did not claim said amount

Impugned judgment passed by the Court below did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity

Impugned judgment and decree was modified to the extent of compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was disposed of, accordingly.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 133/- per sq. feet to Rs. 900/- per sq. feet along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest from the date of acquisition

Validity

Acquired land was situated on the main road and had commercial use and utility

Market value of other areas might not be compared to a commercial part of the land in the Mouza

Referee Court had rightly ignored the mutations of said land in assessing the market value of acquired land

No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence had been pointed out in the impugned judgment passed by the Court below

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Person who had taken the money improperly from the judgment debtor had to restitute to him the amount as a corollary with interest during the time that money had been withheld from him

Section 144 of C.P.C. was equally applicable to money decree and there was no distinction between the private person or the State

Where a sum of money was recovered in execution of a decree which was subsequently reversed or varied then judgment debtor was entitled to get back not only the sum recovered but also the interest or damage or compensation for the period the amount had been retained by him

State was entitled to restitute the entire amount with interest, in circumstances

Landowners had received enhanced compensation with interest for their acquired land pursuant to decision of Referee Court

Direction to restitute the amount with interest was within the powers conferred on the Court under S. 144, C.P.C.

Impugned order passed by the Court below was modified

Petitioner was held entitled to restitution of money from the date of its payment with simple interest at 3% till the realization/refund of the same

Appeal was disposed of, in circumstances.

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.

Appellant assailed judgment and memo of costs passed by Referee Court in terms of S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897

Validity

Statement of one of the witnesses was recorded without oath

Referee Court on the very day of recording examination-in-chief of witnesses had struck down the right of cross-examination of the appellants, which could not be approved

Referee Court had not even minutely scanned the documentary evidence

Appeal was allowed in terms that the judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Referee Court for decision afresh.

Contention of petitioners was that Referee Court should have considered the price of land prevailing at the time of issuance of award instead of the notification

Plea of authorities was that Provincial Government had not been impleaded in the reference which was liable to be rejected due to non-joinder of necessary party

Validity

Price of acquired land was to be determined while considering various factors including nature, location, sale price of adjoining lands and potentiality upto issuance of notification which would go till announcement of award

Entitlement of landlord to claim the price of land at the time of taking over possession was mandatory consideration

Announcement of award did not affect the price of land

Any period consumed in holding formalities could not be considered as advantage to the landlord for compensation of acquired land

Rights/interest of landlord had been protected under compulsory acquisition charges and compound interest till payment of compensation

Compensation could not be awarded beyond the claim of landlord at the time of issuance of notification

Referee Judge had enhanced compensation according to prevailing price of land at the time of issuance of notification

Issuance of notice in the name of Government or department for whose benefit land had been acquired was mandatory

Referee Court was bound to issue notice to all stakeholders including Government through Collector, acquiring agency and even landlords who had not accepted the price fixed in award irrespective of their non-impleadment

Omission to implead Provincial Government as defendant in the reference was not fatal, in circumstances

Court below had not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned judgment

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Land Acquisition Collector had mainly relied on the assessment of compensation made by a committee constituted by the Provincial Board of Revenue whereas value should have been determined in accordance with the formula that a willing buyer was ready to pay the willing seller

Potential value of the acquired land and its surroundings had to be kept in mind while determining the value of land for compensation

Land Acquisition Collector and Referee Court had kept in mind the nature of land classified for agricultural purposes but the acquisition was for construction of a factory

Suit land was industrial, commercial and residential

Statements of witnesses were not cross-examined on main points

High Court allowed the appeals of the land owners and enhanced the amount of compensation for the acquired land.

Contention of respondent was that appeal had not been filed by Land Acquisition Collector but by the Provincial Government and same was not maintainable

Validity

Land Acquisition Collector had passed award on behalf of Provincial Government

Land Acquisition Collector did perform his function while making award as an agent of the Government and he was not a person who had to pay compensation

Compensation had to be paid out of fund of the Provincial Government

Interested person to challenge the enhanced compensation was the Provincial Government itself

Provincial Government could file an appeal against the order/judgment whereby the quantum of compensation had been enhanced by the Court

Appeal filed on behalf of Provincial Government was maintainable, in circumstances.

Impugned awards were dissonant with the direction of High Court wherein the varying nature of constituents of the property was required to be taken into account

Referee Judge had committed same infirmity while passing the impugned judgment

Valuation exercise conducted by the Court below was dissonant with the directives of S.23(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as value of suit property had been considered at the time of passing of awards instead of the time at which notification under S.4 of said Act was issued

Local Commission had submitted its report on the basis of opinion of real estate brokers which was unreliable

Valuation of suit property determined by the Court below was not supported by the factors upon which same had been predicated

Impugned judgment passed by the Referee Court was set aside and matter was remanded for a de novo determination of value of property in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed in, circumstances.