Enhancement of compensation

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.

Land of respondents was front face to the main road, part and parcel of village site, used for agricultural purposes, residential houses and shops were constructed and business activities were carried on in these shops situated a few kilometers away from the main city at a 15 minutes' drive

Land under consideration had great potential and could be used for construction of multistorey buildings, shops and other business like installation of gas and petrol pumps, etc

Acquiring authority had not denied the nature of prospective use of the land, however, had stuck to one year average rates, as supplied by the Collector, based on some sale mutations effected in the area

Compensation of lands acquired under the award had been enhanced on appeal of the other land owners, therefore, the High Court to eliminate the aspect of discrimination among affected land owners enhanced the compensation of the acquired land

Appeal was allowed with modification in the impugned judgment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 the amount to Rs. 75,000/- per marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest

Validity

Referee Judge adopting a cautious approach had not fixed amount of compensation at Rs. 1,50,000/- per marla as suggested by the local commission

Court below was justified in enhancing the amount of compensation as Rs. 75,000/- per marla

Land acquired was situated on the main road had potential value

While determining the amount of compensation not only market value was to be taken into account but the person being deprived of his land against his will was to be adequately compensated

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.

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.

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.

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.

Building replacement cost valuation had presumption of correctness but same was rebuttable by any other convincing and cogent evidence

Every piece of evidence should be appreciated in the light of peculiar circumstances of that case

If any estimate prepared by any person was not according to the market value then Court could ignore the same

Compensation of acquired land was to be awarded according to actual market value

Cases should be decided on the basis of evidence and not on the whims and wishes of Court

Compensation enhanced by the Court below was not according to the actual market value

Landowners were entitled to the cost at the rates which were prevalent in the market at the time of disbursement of compensation

Assessment of value of acquired houses made by the technical expert was accurate and according to the then prevailing rates of building materials

High Court observed that landowners were entitled for maximum value and Courts were to be liberal and generous while determining the compensation of acquired land

Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while determining compensation of acquired land, should be construed liberally in favour of public and strictly against the Government

Landowners should be compensated as per rates of the period during which their houses were acquired and initial disbursement was made

In the present case, market value assessed by the contractor/expert was just, proper and appropriate and land owners were entitled to get the price of their houses accordingly

Impugned judgment and decree were modified accordingly

Appeal was allowed.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 86,836/- per kanal to Rs. 5,00,000/- per kanal alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal against said judgment/order was dismissed on the ground of limitation

Contention of appellants was that impugned judgment was passed by the Referee Judge in their absence

Validity

Nothing was on record that at the time of pronouncement of judgment by the Referee Judge the counsel representing the appellants was not present in the Court

Presumption of truth was attached to the orders of the Court unless rebutted

Knowledge of the counsel was the knowledge of the party

Delay could not be condoned merely on the ground that counsel had not intimated the party with regard to pronouncement of judgment

Court was not to enter into the merits of the case without crossing the bar of limitation

Delay in litigation could only be condoned if sufficient cause had been shown

No sufficient reason had been brought on record for filing the appeal before High Court at such a belated stage

Impugned order passed by the High Court was perfectly legal

No question of public importance was involved in the petition for leave to appeal which was dismissed, in circumstances.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 29,975/- per kanal to Rs. 1,00,000/- per kanal of agricultural land and Rs. 5,00,000/- per kanal of commercial land

Validity

Referee Judge accepted the report of local commission and enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 29,975/- per kanal to Rs.1,00,000/- per kanal of agricultural land and Rs.5,00,000/- per kanal of commercial land but did not consider the rate of agricultural land as suggested by the local commission without any reason

Potential value of property was to be considered in addition to its market value while passing the award

Average sales of last one year was not conclusive proof for determination of market value of the land

Location and potentiality of the land was also to be considered while assessing its market value

Rate of agricultural land was enhanced by the High Court from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per kanal however the compensation of commercial land fixed in the impugned judgment of referee judge being based on cogent reasons was maintained

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea of land owners was that potential value of acquired land was higher than proposed in average year sale prepared by the Patwari Halqa

Reference was dismissed by the Referee Court

Validity

Entire acquired land was Chahi in nature

Petitioners were entitled for compensation against the land at the rate fixed for Chahi kind of land

Collector Land Acquisition had granted compensation in view of the nature of the land as Charri, Maira and uncultivated whereas no compensation had been granted in the impugned award for Chahi land

Petitioner was entitled for compensation of his acquired land being Chahi

Rate of Chahi kind of land provided by the Patwari Halqa was Rs. 29,630.53 per marla

Notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 24-12-2005 whereas impugned award was announced on 28-08-2007

Collector Land Acquisition had considered the compensation for the acquired land on the basis of average of one year sale from 24-12-2004 to 24-12-2005

Date for determination of compensation would be the market value of suit land on the date of taking possession of said land

Amount of compensation for the land acquired from the petitioners was enhanced to Rs. 29,630.53 per marla with all incidental charges as envisaged by Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Reference petition had been filed by the land owners prior to receipt of compensation amount which by itself was protest within the meaning of S. 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

No written protest was mandatory prior to receipt of compensation amount by the land owners

Provisions of S. 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not provide any mechanism for making or lodging such protest at the time or before receiving compensation

Reference could be filed by person who had not accepted the award by a written application to the Collector Land Acquisition for determination of objections to the land acquisition the amount of compensation and the person to whom it was payable

Collector Land Acquisition was bound to invite land owners to put their claims for compensation of their respective interests and objections with regard to measurement of acquired land

Collector Land Acquisition was to serve notice of inquiry to be held under S. 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Provisions of S. 11 of the Act were mandatory in nature and Collector Land Acquisition or Acquisition Officer was responsible for conducting such inquiry

For invoking the penal provision of S. 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the person who was said to have received the amount of compensation without protest would be the one who knew the implication of award and he had a right to claim higher compensation

Protest could be made either in writing or through filing reference within prescribed period of limitation

Claimant might receive the amount of compensation under protest orally, in circumstances

Even reference petition filed by the land owners was sufficient proof of their implied protest against the market price determined by the Collector Land Acquisition

When law did not prescribe any particular mode of protest then the oral protest or reference petition was a valid protest under the law and would be sufficient to entitle the land owners to file reference petition

Market price of acquired land had been assessed and determined by the Collector Land Acquisition on the sole criteria of one year average price which was against the principle of law

Material available on record was also relevant to evaluate the amount of compensation

Civic facilities were available in the vicinity of acquired land

Market price of acquired land had not been properly assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition, in circumstances

Referee Court had rightly determined the market price of the acquired land

Impugned judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and law on the subject

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Contention of appellant was that delay in filing appeal after period of limitation was immaterial as time was consumed in obtaining departmental approval

Validity

Impugned judgment was passed on 11-10-2017 and authorities applied for attested copies of the same on 26-01-2018 after 107 days which were delivered on 03-02-2018

Present appeal was filed on 07-02-2018 which was barred by 22 days

Delay of each and every day had to be sufficiently explained while filing application for condonation of delay

Government or its department as a party should be treated alike just an ordinary litigant and no preferential treatment could be extended to government department

Appellant had failed to explain the delay of each day satisfactorily in filing of appeal, same was dismissed being time barred.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 5,25,000/- per kanal to Rs. 6,25,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Valuation table prepared by the Collector Land Acquisition alone was not sufficient to determine market value of land unless other cogent evidence was not adduced by the parties

Sale deed through which small piece of land in the area had been transferred could not be made basis for enhancement of compensation

Landlord had failed to prove that the acquired land was situated in the same vicinity where the said piece of land was sold and alleged sale deed was executed

Compensation had already been enhanced by the Referee Judge

Further enhancement in the compensation on the basis of available evidence was not justified

Some part of the village where suit land had been acquired was of high potential value but it could not be said that the portion which had actually been acquired had the same commercial and potential value

Commercial and potential value of the land could vary for being located even at a distance of yards

Compensation could not be enhanced on the basis of surmises and conjectures

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs.350,000/- per kanal to Rs.550,000/- per kanal which was further enhanced by the High Court to the tune of Rs.700,000/- per kanal

Validity

Market value of acquired land to the extent of claim of land owners had not been proved

Judgment had to be given on the basis of concrete evidence but not on the surmises and conjectures

Compensation determined by the Referee Judge was not reasonable but same was reasonably determined and enhanced by the High Court

Respondent who had not gained knowledge of appeal could prefer cross objection within thirty days after due notice to him

Service was affected upon some of the respondents on 19-11-2011 and they filed cross objection on 22-12-2011

Cross objection had not been filed within time

Nothing had been mentioned in the cross objection with regard to knowledge/service or for condonation of delay

Cross objection could be filed before service of notice if it was otherwise in the knowledge of respondents that appeal had been filed and they had the notice of date of hearing

Appellate court had powers to grant relief to a non-appealing party if a proper case was made out

Benefit of judgment of High Court was liable to be extended to all the land owners notwithstanding the fact that cross objection of some land owners had been rejected on the ground of limitation

Similarly placed litigants deserved to be treated in the like manner when the award was the same and evidence on the basis of which compensation had been enhanced was also not different

Appellate Court had powers for granting relief to a non-appealing party in appeal if a proper case was made out

Impugned judgment passed by the High Court was modified in the terms that appellants whose cross objections were rejected would also be entitled to the compensation as determined by the High Court

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Suit property was being acquired for construction of Police Lines which was yards away from the judicial complex of the district

Potential value of land in question was much higher than any other area in the proximity

High Court had already fixed Rs. 14,00,000/- per kanal as market value of the property acquired for construction of same Police Lines according to prevailing rate in the year 2013

Award in the said cases was announced on 10-09-2004 which was about nine years earlier

Present award was also issued for construction of Police Lines but it was earlier to the said award of 2013

Rate of suit property prevailing during the year 2004 was to be considered for determination of its market value

Referee Judge had referred a document for determination of market value of suit property but had failed to note that the market value assessed in the said document was different from the rate fixed

Court had either to accept or reject a document as a whole

Referee Judge had committed material irregularity and illegality while fixing Rs. 223190.48/- per kanal as compensation of suit land

Inflationary trends in the market was also to be considered while fixing compensation of acquired land

High Court fixed market value of the land at Rs. 250817.38/- per kanal in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Impugned judgment passed by the Referee Judge was modified

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 1506/- per marla to Rs. 15,000/- per marla along with compulsory acquisition charges and simple interest

Validity

Basic civic facilities were available in the land adjacent to the land under acquisition

Referee Judge had failed to appreciate the principles contemplated in S. 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Rate of compensation assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition for the land acquired in an award should not be made the basis of the land acquired through another award

Facts and circumstances of each case had to be considered separately for determination of fair rate of the land under acquisition

Land acquired through another award and present land were adjacent to each other having same characteristics

Compensation awarded to the adjacent land owners could not be ignored

Best mode for determination of market price would be to take into consideration the instances of sales of adjacent land made shortly before or after notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Price of adjacent land had been assessed to the tune of Rs. 125,000/- per marla by the High Court

When land owner had omitted for sufficient reasons to make such claim, then amount awarded to him by the Court must not be less than that and might exceed the amount awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition

Collector Land Acquisition was bound to prove the service of notice

Penal clause of S.25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could only be invoked if service of said notice had been proved

Court could award amount of compensation over and above what had been claimed by the land owner in a reference provided sufficient material existed to justify the same

Land owner had claimed an amount of Rs. 70,000/- per marla as market value of acquired land in the present case

Reference Court was to consider evidence on record and examine whether Collector Land Acquisition had considered the nature, location and future potentiality of the land acquired in addition to one year average price

Demand of land owners would be immaterial for determination of compensation

Courts were under legal obligation to determine the fair compensation irrespective of claim of land owners

Land owners, in circumstances, were entitled to be paid compensation @ Rs. 125,000/- per marla with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest from the date of acquisition till final payment

Impugned judgment passed by the Referee Court was modified

Appeal filed by the land owner was accepted whereas that of government was dismissed in circumstances.

Referee Court accepted reference by enhancing the rate of compensation at commercial rate along with compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Nothing was on record with regard to change of status of land in question from agricultural to commercial

Findings recorded by the Referee Court were not sustainable under the law

Land owner had received compensation without any protest

Compensation of acquired land had been awarded as per prevailing market value, keeping in view location of the land and the loss suffered by the plaintiff

Impugned judgment was result of mis-reading and non-reading of material evidence placed on record which was set aside

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs.1,00,000/- per kanal to Rs.4,00,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Land under reference had been acquired for commercial purpose

Land in the same village had been alienated in consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- per kanal within two months later to the notification issued in the present case which transaction was relevant

Referee Judge was not justified to discard the said transaction on flimsy grounds

Price of acquired land as Rs.20,00,000/- per kanal could not be proved as no documentary evidence was produced by the land owners

Location of disputed land should have been compared with the land on the basis of its use and potentiality

Nothing was on record that land sold in the area was superior to the land under reference

Acquired land was situated at a prime location which could fetch the price manifold presently

Future potential value and its use could also be taken into consideration while determining the compensation amount

Compensation of land under reference should have been fixed according to the prevailing average price of the village which was Rs.8,00,000/- per kanal

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was modified in terms that land owners would be entitled to receive compensation of land under reference @ Rs.8,00,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 10,000/- per Kanal to Rs. 20,000/- per Kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Collector Land Acquisition while determining the market value of land under reference kept aside the factors relevant to determine the market value like location of land, its present and future use, potential market value and value of other properties adjacent to the acquired land

Initially market value was assessed as Rs. 1,50,000/- per kanal but later on value was decreased to Rs. 10,000/- per kanal

Collector Land Acquisition lessened the value of land under reference illegally and unfairly

Acquired land was valuable and commercial

Different lands had been acquired for the same purpose but land owners/applicants had been compensated in a different way which was discriminatory

Referee Judge had not appreciated evidence in its true perspective

Documentary evidence with regard to sale deeds of land adjacent to the acquired land had not been considered

Documents could not tell a lie

Court had to consider the sales of lands of the areas adjacent to the acquired land

Each and every case had to be decided upon the strength of evidence produced therein

High Court observed that market value of land under reference should have been fixed as the average price of the other land sold in the area in the light of documentary evidence as Rs. 7,04,972/- per kanal which was fair and just

Land owners were entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 7,04,972/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges irrespective of its kind

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Referee Judge was modified and appeal was allowed accordingly.

High Court enhanced compensation amount from Rs.6,25,000/- per Kanal to Rs. 23,98,000/- per Kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Every case had to be decided according to its own record

High Court had not made proper appreciation of evidence produced in record

Average price according to sale deeds referred and relied upon by the land owner would come to Rs.22,01,582/- per kanal

Value of suit land according to valuation table was fixed as Rs.22,00,000/- per kanal

Market value of the land had been proved as Rs.22,00,000/- per kanal

Compensation amount enhansed by the High Court as Rs.23,98,000/- was modified and reduced to Rs.22,00,000/- per kanal.

None of the land owners stated that land sold through sale-deeds exhibited and acquired land was of same potential value, nature, location or adjacent to each other

Tendering of any document in evidence was not sufficient until the landowners had not proved that the location, nature or potential value of land sold through said document and acquired land was the same

Sale-deeds produced by the landowners could not be made basis for enhancement in the compensation

Oral evidence produced by the plaintiffs was hearsay evidence

Nothing was on record that Collector Land Acquisition had properly assessed the market value of land in question

High Court after computing expenditure incurred on the development had rightly fixed the compensation

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

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

No provision existed in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which might make obligatory that landowner must appear in the witness-box

If a case was otherwise proved then mere fact that a party did not put itself in the witness-box could not detract from the other proof on the record

No sale-deed was executed in the vicinity from where land was acquired after issuance of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or prior to the same

When there was no sale-deed in the relevant village then sale-deed executed in the adjacent village could be relied by the Collector Land Acquisition for determining the compensation

Collector Land Acquisition recorded the findings that the prices of land in the village were very high due to the strong financial condition of people

Referee Judge also observed that the compensation determined by the Collector Land Acquisition was inadequate

High Court had rightly enhanced compensation in the present case

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Valuation table could not be made a sole yardstick however same could be considered one of the helping factors coupled with others for determination of market value

Best evidence for determination of market value might be sale deeds executed prior to the issuance of S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and sale deeds executed thereafter within 12 months period in the same vicinity

If sale deeds of the land situated in the same village were not available then sale deeds executed in the adjoining village could be considered while determining the market value

Valuation table issued by the Collector Land Acquisition was relevant for determination of market value of the acquired land

District Collector, in the present-case, had determined the value of agricultural land as Rs. 42,000/- per marla which would come to Rs.8,40,000/- per kanal

Valuation table and sale deeds were to be considered side by side for determination of market value

Compensation of awarded land should be determined while taking into consideration the average value of the land prescribed in the valuation table and sale deeds which would come to Rs. 53,166/- per marla

Compensation of land was fixed as Rs. 10,63,333/- per kanal on the basis of average value of sale deeds and valuation table

Appeal was accepted accordingly.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation price to the extent of Rs.100,000/- Banjer Qadeem, Rs.75,000/- Ghair Mumkin Rs.5,50,000/- for Ghair Mumkin School, per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Collector Land Acquisition had himself observed that the prices of the land in the village were much higher and people were ready to pay maximum price which any one could demand

Compensation assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition appeared to be erroneous

Market value of the land had to be determined keeping in view not only the sale deeds registered during the period of one year before the issuance of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but also the sale deeds registered after issuance of the said notification

Market value of the land should not be valued merely by reference to the use for which it was being acquired at the relevant time but also the use to which it could reasonably be put in future

Referee Judge as well as the High Court had not considered the evidence properly which was misreading and non-reading of evidence

Market value of the land was such price on which the owner of the same was ready to sell and willing buyer was ready to purchase

Supreme Court observed that Referee Judge as well as the High Court should have considered the oral evidence and sale deeds to determine that acquired land could be utilized for residential and commercial purpose

Landowners were entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kanal irrespective of the land, with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

When there was no sale deed executed in that village, sale deeds executed in the adjacent villages could be relied upon by the Collector Land Acquisition for determining the compensation

Landowner had not produced any sale deed executed in the adjacent villages on the basis of which compensation as claimed by him could be awarded

Collector Land Acquisition had relied upon the sale deeds executed in the village during the past one year from the date of issuance of notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and had fixed the compensation in the light of said sale deeds

Claim of land owner had not been proved from any evidence

People in the area had small holdings and were not ready to sell agricultural land

Prices of land in the area were much higher as compared to compensation awarded to the land owner but party had to stand on its own footings

Plaintiff should prove his case with best evidence that could be sale deeds executed in the adjacent village during the relevant period

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Land was not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it was being put at the relevant time but also by a reference to the use to which it was capable of being put in future

Market value was the potential value of the property at the time of acquisition which would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller

Price of acquired land had to be fixed in accordance with the aim and rule that willing buyer was ready to pay and willing seller was prepared to receive the price so fixed for whole of the land

One year's average sale price of the land in the vicinity preceding the date of issuance of notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was only one of the factors for consideration in determining the market value but it alone could not be adopted as the basis for assessment of the potential value of acquired land

Land owners had produced two sale deeds executed prior to three years from issuance of award

Average price of the land of vicinity was higher than the compensation assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition

Both the Courts below had not given weight to the sale deeds on the ground that same were executed prior to three years from issuance of notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Said findings were not proper as the prices of the land might automatically rise

Sale deeds which were executed prior to the issuance of said notification could not be turned down merely because they were executed three years prior to the acquisition of land in question

Price of the land in question could not be assessed lesser than the price prevailing three years prior to issuance of notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Defendants had not produced any evidence in rebuttal of evidence produced by the land owners

Findings of the High Court were not sustainable in the eye of law

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside

Market value of the land in question was fixed by the Supreme Court as determined in the sale deeds produced by the land owners irrespective of any kind plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Court while determining the amount of compensation was to take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

No sale deed was executed in the area in twelve months prior to the date of issuance of said notification

Proper course for the Collector Land Acquisition, in circumstances, was to consider the sale deeds executed in adjacent areas

Collector Land Acquisition had considered the sale deeds executed in the contiguous and adjoining areas which was right mode to determine market value

Collector Land Acquisition had concluded that market value of the land acquired was not lesser than the land sold in the adjacent village

No justification existed for the Collector Land Acquisition to deprive the land owners of the said compensation

Referee Judge had failed to take into consideration that Collector Land Acquisition had correctly assessed the compensation of the land in question

Collector Land Acquisition could not deviate from his own findings

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court were set aside and award was modified by the Supreme Court

Compensation was to be paid to the land owners according to the assessment made by the Collector Land Acquisition along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Execution petition by the landowners for payment of enhanced rate of compensation who were not party to the proceedings for enhancement

Scope

Petitioners-landowners who were not party to the proceedings for enhancement of compensation moved execution petition for payment of enhanced rate of compensation but same was dismissed by the Executing Court

Validity

Determination of compensation had attained finality

Benefit of enhanced rate of compensation was also to be extended to the petitioners-landowners (who were not party to the proceedings)

Impugned order passed by the Executing Court was set aside while restoring the execution petition

Execution petition filed by the petitioners-landowners should be deemed to be pending before the Executing Court for proceeding with the same in accordance with law treating the petitioners as decree holders in the case

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Provision of S. 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is mandatory in nature, has restricted Referee court to award compensation between two limits that are enhanced compensation is neither to exceed the amount claimed by landowners nor is the same to be below the amount awarded by Collector under S. 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Provincial Government acquired suit land for public purpose after issuance of notification and notices to landlords under Ss. 4, 9 & 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Collector, after submission of objections from landowners, announced award of compensation to landowners

Landowners, being dissatisfied with the award of compensation announced by the Collector, made application for reference under S. 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation

Referee court enhanced amount of compensation as claimed by landowners

Landowners and land acquiring authority both challenged judgment of Referee court

Landowners claimed further enhancement on the ground that compensation awarded for acquired land in adjacent village was higher than the enhanced compensation awarded to them by Referee court

Validity

Landowners, in their respective objections, had claimed specific amount as compensation and the Referee court, in reference filed for enhancement of compensation, had enhanced the same as prayed for

Provision of S. 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was mandatory in nature, had restricted Referee court to award compensation between two limits that is, enhanced compensation was neither to exceed the amount claimed by landowners nor was the same to be below the amount awarded by Collector under S. 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Statutory clog in shape of S. 25(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was available in the present case

Landowners were not allowed to go beyond their pleadings

Nothing wrong was found in judgment of Referee court, and the same was maintained being based on proper appreciation of evidence

High Court dismissed appeals in circumstances.

Landowners were entitled to get the same market value of the acquired land which was fixed by the District Collector even before the acquisition of land in question

Land, in the present case, was situated in the Municipal limits

Trial Court had made an error while fixing amount of compensation

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Referee Judge was modified and value of acquired land was fixed as Rs. 8,40,000/- per kanal irrespective of its kind along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Best evidence for determination of market value might be the sale deeds executed prior to the issuance of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the ones executed thereafter within 12 months period in the vicinity

If sale deeds of the land situated in the same village were not available then sale-deeds executed in the adjoining village could be considered while determining the market value of the land

Compensation of awarded land should be determined while taking into consideration the average value of land prescribed in the sale deeds

Compensation amount was based on average value of sale deeds and not land along witi, 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Impugned judgment was set aside and appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 2318/- per marla to Rs. 1,00,000/- per marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest from the date of possession till the payment

Validity

Acquired land was situated on main road where all the civic facilities were available

Best mode for determination of market price would be the instances of sale of adjacent land made shortly before or after the notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Value of land acquired through award was assessed as Rs. 125,000/- per mala with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest from the date of acquisition till final payment

Impugned judgment and decree were modified accordingly.

Reference was withdrawn and cross objection was dismissed on the ground that main reference for enhancement of compensation had been withdrawn

Validity

Department for whose benefit land was acquired had no authority and locus standi either to file reference against the award for compensation or to carry with the cross-objections in the absence of reference made by the land owners

Government being beneficiary of the land acquired had no right to challenge the compensation given to the deprived owners of land

Department, local Authority or company for which land had been acquired might file an objection petition to the objection made by any person interested and the compensation amount as awarded by the Collector could be reduced, if deemed fit by the Referee Court

No proceedings could be conducted on cross-objections in case of withdrawal of main reference

Impugned order had been passed with conscious and application of independent mind

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Future potential value and inflation in prices during intervening period between the issuance of notification and award was considered by the Referee Judge while determining rate of compensation but it was not clear as to how the amount had been determined

Schedule of average price for four years or for that matter even of one year were not only criterion for determination of amount of compensation but the "other material" brought on file was quite relevant to determine the correct amount of compensation for the acquired land

Amount to be paid to the owner for acquiring his land was not the price but the compensation which would always be higher than the price

Referee Court was bound to appoint local commission for determination of market value

Report of Local Commission was to be taken into consideration for determination of compensation

Average could not be relied upon in such like cases without appointment of local commission

Case was remanded to the Referee Court with the direction to appoint local commission to determine the status of property, location and future potentiality and decide the same afresh within specific period

Impugned judgment passed by the Referee Court was set aside

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Referee Judge assessed the market value of suit property at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per marla but it was not clear as to how the said amount had been determined

Average available on record had not been taken into consideration nor statements of Property Dealers and elders brought on file had been taken into consideration-Court was bound to appoint local commission for determination of market value/compensation of land under reference

Land Acquisition Collector had also referred to acquisition in the same vicinity at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- per marla which had lost the sight of the Trial Court

No cogent evidence had been discussed in the impugned judgment

Claim of objectors had not been properly addressed by the Referee Judge

Court had to consider evidence brought on record by the parties

One year average, location of acquired land, its potentiality and likelihood of development and improvement, and report of local commission were to be taken into consideration for determination of compensation

Average could not be relied upon in such like cases without appointment of local commission as vendees showed smaller amount to avoid imposition of tax and stamp duty

Appointment of local commission had become inevitable in cases of enhancement of compensation

Case was remanded to the Referee Judge with the direction to consider and evaluate evidence in the light of documents and statements of disinterested persons

Referee Judge should also record fresh evidence if needed and appoint local commission to determine the status of the property, location and future potentiality within the specified period

Impugned judgment and decree were set aside and appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 12/- per sq. ft. to Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. along with compulsory acquisition charges and simple interest

Validity

Local commissioner had assessed the value of land @ Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. at the time of acquisition of the same and no objection against the report of commission was filed

Counsel of appellant referred to a document which revealed that same was Bayan/report of Sub-Engineer, such document could not be considered as objection against the report of commission

Possession of property was taken on 26-08-1999 and average relied upon for assessment of land pertained to the year 1997 which was not fair and just

Amount assessed in the award was not the result of proper assessment of value of the land

Future prospect and potentiality of the land had to be taken into consideration at the time of assessment of value of land for the purpose of acquisition which was lacking in the present case

Objectors were entitled for the compensation at the rate assessed by the local commissioner

Value of land had to be assessed in the light of prevailing market rate at the time of taking possession of property by way of acquisition

Compensation had to be considered but not the actual price which would always be at higher pedestal than actual prices

Referee Judge had rightly assessed the value of the land

No infirmity or illegality had been pointed out in the impugned judgment

Compulsory acquisition charges were to be paid @ 25% instead of 15% along with 6% simple interest from the date of possession till actual payment of amount

Judgment of Trial Court was modified and compulsory acquisition charges were awarded to the tune of 25% instead of 15%

WAPDA being corporate body would fall within the definition of company and compulsory acquisition charges were to be paid @ 25% instead of 15%

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Supreme Court had fixed the compensation amount of the land acquired through the same award in the vicinity for specified amount per kanal

Present land owners could not be discriminated against under the rule of consistency and principle of equality

Referee Judge had wrongly fixed the compensation amount less than its market value

Classification of land with the use of chemical fertilizer had become insignificant

Amount of compensation of the land under reference was fixed accordingly along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges irrespective of its kind

Judgment and decree passed by the Referee Judge were set aside and award was modified

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.