Quantum of compensation

2024 MLD 968 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.1Suit for recovery of damagesMark up, calculation ofQuantum of compensation

Appellant/Provincial Government was aggrieved of compensation awarded to respondents/legal heirs of deceased who lost his life in a road accident

Plea raised by appellant / Provincial Government was that personal expenses of deceased were not deducted from the amount of damages and markup was to be given from date of decree

Validity

No accurate breakup in respect of amount of compensation / damages claimed can either be worked out or calculated but it is always a guess work, which is based upon a number of facts which include age of deceased, amount earned by him at the time of his death, his life expectancy, number of persons of whom he was the bread earner, etc.

Such working is always a guess work based on the facts of each case

Deceased was only 26 years of age at the time of his death and it was assumed that had he not died, he would have lived upto 72 years and thereafter keeping in view such factors compensation was worked out

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 MLD 1882 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

DefamationLibelSuit for damagesIssuance of public noticeWrong impression about plaintiffQuantum of compensationScope

Plaintiff filed suit for damages and claimed that the defendants published and got published defamatory allegations (public notice) against him without verification of the facts

Validity

Public notice got issued by defendant prima facie had a reason of its publication i.e.the claim of land

Public notice was issued to put public onto notice about claims of the defendant and its intended action was to protect every inch of its property, hence to such extent public notice was within its object and purpose

Deliberate use of the name of plaintiff in public notice seemed to allow general public to have wrong impression about the plaintiff that he had illegally allotted its lands

Mere claim of bona fide or to have acted in the interest of defendant did not absolve the defendants from establishing bona fide

Public notice to the extent of mentioning the name of plaintiff was not in public interest rather was causeless resulting in damage to the reputation of plaintiff

Plaintiff, on establishing defamation, had only become entitled to compensation but quantum thereof was an entirely different thing which had got its own peculiar requirements/ingredients and mere claim of certain amount as a damages did not earn plaintiff a right to insist decree to such extent

Plaintiff had never attempted to differentiate damages with regard to mental torture, agony, defamation and financial loss but had claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 50 million

High Court, in absence of proof of mental shock and bifurcation of claimed damages, found it proper and justified to award an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/-(eighty lac) to the plaintiff

Suit was partially decreed.

2016 YLR 643 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 23, 11 & 4Acquisition of landQuantum of compensationMatters to be considered in determining compensationPublication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereonEnquiry and award by Collector'Market value' and 'potential value' of landPrinciples as to determinationPrinciple of 'willing buyer and seller'ApplicabilityAverage yearly value of land not to be taken as conclusive for determining compensationCompulsory acquisition charges, limit ofInordinate delay of twenty-two years in passing award after taking possession of acquired landEffectNature and character of landEffect on quantum of compensation

Referee Court, on basis of reports of Local Commissions as to actual market value of the acquired land, enhanced the amount of compensation along with awarding fifteen percent compulsory acquisition charges and fifteen percent simple interest

Objectors-land owners contended that the market value and potential value of the acquired land was still much higher than the compensation determined by the acquiring authority and enhanced by Referee Court, and that Referee Court could also consider the future prospects of similar lands

Authorities, on the other hand, contended that acquired land, being barren land comprising of ditches and hilly area, had no potential value, and that no evidence was available on record to justify the enhancement by Referee Court

Validity

Department had acquired subject land from twelve villages, and as some of the villages had no yearly average value, the value of the same was assessed on basis of yearly average of adjacent village without taking into consideration their potential value

Collector, while assessing compensation, had not only to consider market value for land in question but also its potential value

Market value, under principle of 'willing buyer and seller', was normally taken up as that existing at date of notification under S.4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Potential value was the value to which similar land could be put to any use in future; and in determining quantum of compensation, the exercise might not be restricted to time of the notification, and future value of land might be taken into account

High Court observed that average sales of last one year was not conclusive for determination of market value of land, and while assessing the market value of land, its location and potentiality had to be considered

High Court further observed that market value, at time of issuance of Notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was merely one of the modes for ascertaining compensation, and the same was not absolute yardstick for assessing compensation, and that classification or nature of land might be taken as relevant consideration, but the same was not absolute

Land might be 'Banjar' or 'Barani', but its market value might be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits

Assessment of compensation on basis of one year average was not sole criteria in present trend of extraordinary hike in landed property

Objection had been filed by all the land owners for enhancement of compensation on ground their land was situated adjacent to industrial area, where all basic necessities were available, and the Department had not denied the assertions of the objectors

Award in question had been announced after twenty-two years of taking possession of subject land without any valid reasons for the delay

Due to the inordinate and unexplained delay by concerned authorities, not only the market value of the acquired land had increased, but its potential value had also enhanced many folds due to passage of time

Acquired land was situated at valuable places and had potential value; thus, future value of the land was required to have been assessed keeping in view of the time of determining compensation of acquired land

Market value or transaction, which had taken place in the beginning of acquisition process, was meaningless

Collector himself, through letter, in the past, had acknowledged that delay in award would cause damage and complications and suggested assessment of rate of compensation on basis of per year average of existing year; said letter itself justified the claim of land owners

High Court had already observed (during pre-remand proceedings) that neither the Patwari Halqa was fair and faithful in producing evidence (regarding one year average value of acquired land), nor were Referee Court, hearing the references, were discreet and discursive in examining the evidence thus produced

Value of acquired land, in such situation, could not be assessed only on basis of one year average

Factors for evaluating market value mentioned in S.23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not preclude courts from taking any other special circumstances into consideration, as requirement was always to arrive at reasonable correct value

Three Local Commission reports were in field, which had not been rejected by Referee courts

Once Referee Court had concluded that value of the acquired land had to be ascertained on basis of 'what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller', then the Referee Judges was bound to ascertain the actual price of the acquired land by taking into consideration said reports If Local Commissions and the one year average given by different Patwaries

Owners of subject land were entitled to compulsory charges at rate of twenty-five percent instead of fifteen percent

Department, while acquiring the subject land, had neither considered interest of land owners nor had assessed market value of the acquired land in accordance with settled principles under S.23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

High Court, on basis of one year average value given by Patwaries, reports of Local Commissions, potential value of location of the acquired land and the delay in passing of Award, further enhanced the rate of compensation along with enhancing compulsory acquisition charges to twenty-five percent and awarding six percent simple interest on the enhanced amount

Appeals filed by the authorities and the acquiring department were dismissed; whereas, appeals along with cross objections filed by the land owners were allowed in circumstance.

2014 SCMR 75 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 23Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 27-AAcquisition of landQuantum of compensationValuation of property, determination ofValuation table prepared and notified by the office of Deputy Commissioner in terms of S. 27-A of Stamp Act, 1899Scope

Said valuation table by itself might not furnish conclusive evidence qua value of property but it could be taken note of particularly in absence of any evidence to the contrary regarding value of the property and other factors reflected in the evidence with regard to the potential value of property.

2014 MLD 356 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Award of damagesConditionsDemolition of houseCompensationQuantum of compensationDeterminationRule of thumbApplicabilityDevelopment Authority/defendant demolished plaintiff's house

Plaintiff challenged demolition of house before High Court, whereby the High Court declared the demolition illegal and directed to approach competent court of law for adequate compensation

Suit for damages filed by plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court

Appellate Court allowed appeal of the plaintiff and awarded compensation along with interest thereon

Appellate Court after thrashing out the entire record and evidence had come to the conclusion that specific amount would be the correct amount for granting compensation to the plaintiff in respect of the agonies suffered

Validity

Awarding of damages was always the discretionary power of the court and such power had to be exercised keeping in view the facts of each case

No exact amount of compensation could be calculated and only a tentative assessment had to be made keeping in view the evidence produced by the plaintiff and rule of thumb could be applied in this regard

Claim of money as nearly possible to damages suffered by the plaintiff are to be granted

Defendant admitted the fact that without proper application of law they had demolished the property of plaintiff

Plaintiff had proved that she was entitled for compensation

Compensation awarded by the Appellate Court keeping in view all the attending circumstances, evidence, documents and other material appeared to be reasonable and no interference in this regard was warranted

Revision application was dismissed.

2013 SCMR 1644 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 23Acquisition of land for commercial purposesQuantum of compensationFactors to be considered for determining market value of acquired landScopeLand in question was acquired from the respondents for a cement factory

Land Acquisition Collector passed compensatory award at the rate of Rs. 13,776.20 per kanal, plus 25% compulsory acquisition charges, and Rs. 100 per acre administration charges

Land owners being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation filed their objections/reference before the civil court, which enhanced rate of compensation from Rs. 13,776.20 per kanal to Rs.34,500 per kanal

Cement factory/appellant filed appeals before the High Court, which reduced the compensation from Rs.34,500 per kanal to Rs. 30,000 per kanal

Validity

Land acquired for the benefit of cement factory was surrounded from different directions by metalled roads, railway link, residential colonies and industrial units

Land in question was being used for commercial purposes

One of the witnesses who appeared in court on behalf of the cement factory admitted in his evidence that there were residential colonies, factories and industries in the area where acquired land was situated; that land acquired was only at a distance of half kilometer from a major road (Grand Trunk Road), and that about three years ago cement factory purchased some other land similar to the acquired land at the rate of Rs.30,000 per kanal

Two courts below had carefully taken into account all aspects of the case and based on proper appreciation of evidence, finally awarded compensation at Rs. 30,000 per kanal with other consequential legal benefits

Appeals were dismissed accordingly.

2013 SCMR 1644 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 23 & 24Acquisition of landQuantum of compensationFactors to be considered for determining market value of acquired landScope

For determining proper rate of compensation for the acquired land, not only the factors highlighted in Ss.23 & 24 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were relevant, but the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case were more important deciding factors in such regard.