Rate of compensation

2026 YLR 318 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.9 & 25Rate of compensationLimitation on award beyond claimed amountApplicability

Whether rate of compensation can be enhanced beyond the amount claimed by the appellants in the reference application and to what extent

Section 25 of the Act, 1894 reflects that it sets a condition precedent to the limit of the compensation that could be awarded, where claim is made or not made pursuant to a notice given under S.9 of the Act, 1894

A careful reading of both provisions reveals that S.25 cannot be pressed into service unless the statutory obligations under S.9 are fully satisfied

Section 9 mandates the issuance of public notice and personal service of individual notices to all persons known or believed to be interested in the land being acquired

Such notices must provide a clear opportunity for the affected persons to file compensation claims, raise objections, and assert their interests within the stipulated timeframe.

2016 YLR 147 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 23Rate of CompensationDetermining factors

Not only market value of land but also other factors, which by any means affected interest of petitioner, would be considered for determination of compensation which was to be awarded to landowner in lieu of his property.

2016 YLR 147 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 18 & 23Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96Reference to courtRate of compensationDetermining factors

Landowner filed reference petition under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation for the suit property acquired by respondents, which was referred to civil court

Trial Court, after recording evidence, accepted the reference and enhanced rate of compensation

Contention raised by landowner was that the compensation awarded and later enhanced was not according to fair market rate

Respondent took plea that acquired land was barren having no future potentiality

Validity

Acquired land, in the present case, had acquired status of village site

Not only the market value of land but also other factors, which by any means affected interest of petitioner, would be considered for determination of compensation which was to be awarded to petitioner in lieu of his property

Land, in question as per Local commission report, being useful for construction of houses and adjacent to main road, had great potentiality

Referee court failed to consider facts of the case in terms of S. 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

High Court accepting appeal enhanced amount of compensation with acquisition charges and simple interest.

2013 PTD 246 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.171Additional payment for delayed refundsRate of compensationRefund was determined as a result of order of Appellate TribunalRefund was subsequently adjusted against demandTaxpayer claimed compensation on delayed refund

Department allowed compensation, however, compensation was calculated @ 6% instead of KIBOR rate that prevailed for the tax year

Taxpayer contended that compensation should have been calculated as per rate prevalent on the date when refund became due

First Appellate Authority directed to allow compensation on the basis of law as amended vide Finance Act, 2009

Appeal

Taxpayer contended that mala fide of the department was clear from the treatment as when the rate of compensation was reduced the department adopted rate prevalent during the period compensation accrued; that when rate of compensation was enhanced, it refused to apply rate prevalent during that period and took just opposite position in that rate prevalent in tax year 2008 was applicable; and that refund became due on 17-8-2009, the rate applicable on that date was to be applied

Validity

Appellate Tribunal endorsed the observation of First Appellate Authority that compensation under S.171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was allowable on rate prevalent at the time the refund became due

Departmental appeal failed.