Reference to Referee Court

2016 GBLR 255 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 18, 23 & 31(2)Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60Acquisition of landAward of compensationPartial payment of compensation received by landownersOrder to surrender partial paymentReference to referee court

Acquiring authority being dissatisfied with the payment of amount filed reference petition under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court who directed the landowners to surrender the partial payment received by them

Judgment of the Referee Court was maintained by the Chief Court

Validity

Referee Court and Chief Court had passed the judgment in accordance with law and facts of the case

Well reasoned and well founded concurrent judgments of the courts below were maintained by the Supreme Appellate Court

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and dismissed

Petitioners, submitted that instead of surrendering the amount in cash, Bank Guarantee of the same/equal amount, was to be accepted by the Trial Court

Such request of the petitioners was accepted by Supreme Appellate Court

Order accordingly.

2016 GBLR 246 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 12, 18 & 34Acquisition of landCompensationDetermination ofReference to Referee Court

Referee Judge in the light of pleadings, framed issues and parties produced their respective evidence pro and contra and passed a decree in favour of land owners

Authorities filed First Appeal before the Chief Court which upheld the judgment of Referee Court

Validity

Concurrent judgments had been passed by the Division Bench of the Chief Court and Referee Court after thrashing out entire documentary evidence

No substantial grounds or reasons existed for interference in the impugned judgments of the Chief Court and Referee Court

Petition was dismissed.

2013 MLD 1204 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 11, 15, 18 & 23Acquisition of landDetermination of amount of compensationReference to Referee Court

Collector Land Acquisition, determined the amount of compensation of acquired land as Rs.600,000 per Kanal, including 15% of compulsory acquisition charges

Dissatisfied from said determination, landowners filed Reference to Referee Court for enhancement of amount of compensation

Referee Court enhanced amount to Rs.7,31,720 per Kanal

Still dissatisfied with the enhancement, landlord filed appeal before High Court for further enhancement of the amount which was dismissed

Validity

Landowners in support of their claim had produced the oral as well as the documentary evidence who had not supported the claim of the landowners

Sale-deed executed from the vicinity of the acquired land, relied upon by the landowners, was executed three years after issuance of the notification in respect of land in question under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Collector Land Acquisition while determining the amount of compensation, would take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of notification

High Court had rightly concurred with the findings of the Referee Court

Enhancement in compensation amount as Rs.7,31,720 per Kanal in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges by Referee Court and upheld by High Court, appeared to have been made on the basis of evidence brought on record

Market value of acquired land fixed by Referee Court being just and equitable, judgments of the Referee Court as well as the High Court, needed no interference by the Supreme Court in circumstances.

2013 MLD 685 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 11, 18 & 54Acquisition of landDetermination of compen-sationReference to Referee CourtLimitationEnhancement of amount of compensation

Landowner aggrieved from the assessed amount, filed reference to Referee Court 18 years and 8 months after the of issuance of award, without filing an application for condonation of delay for period of limitation

In view of such inordinate delay in filing reference, landowner should have mentioned in his application of condonation of delay, the exact date on which he came to know that Collector had issued award, but that had not been done

Landowner had remained silent for more than 18 years, and his reference was hopelessly time-barred, and such a long period could not be condoned in any case

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2010 GBLR 370 SUPREME-APPELATE-COURT-GILGIT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4, 18, 28 & 34Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)Acquisition of landDetermination of amount of compensationReference to Referee CourtInterest payable to landownersScope

Petitioners/ landowners, whose land was acquired, being not content with the compensation amount, approached the Collector for referring the matter to Referee Court under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Referee Court enhanced the compensation amount

Dispute had arisen in the matter of calculation of interest payable to the petitioner under S.28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would come into play at a point of time when Referee Court had made its award upon the matter being referred to it by the Land Acquisition Collector under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Interest would be payable only in case the court would come to the conclusion that the compensation payable to the landowners, was in excess of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Collector

Once the court would come to such conclusion, the Collector upon direction of the court had to pay the compound interest on the excess amount at the rate of 8%

Compound interest payable, was to be paid on the excess amount and that excess referred to the difference between the amount determined by the court; and the amount assessed by the Collector; provided the amount determined by the court was in excess of the amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector

Such interest was to be paid retrospectively with effect from the date mentioned in the judgment passed by Referee Court and till such time that the excess amount was deposited in the court

Impugned order passed by Chief Court and order passed by Executing Court below, were set aside, with the direction that the petitioners were entitled for the compound interest under S.28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; further the excess amount in the shape of interest was to be paid retrospectively with effect from judgment of the Referee Court

Executing Court was directed to calculate the interest on the excess amount of compensation and satisfy the decree according to law and equity.