Compensation

Appellant was aggrieved of dismissal of her complaint by Consumer Court for lack of jurisdiction in the matter of medical negligence

Validity

Even if Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995 provides remedies in consumer transactions, matters specifically involving medical negligence fall exclusively under Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018

Any aggrieved person must first approach Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Authority for redressal and determination of negligence before seeking other remedies

Islamabad Healthcare Regulation Act, 2018 is a subsequent and special legislation exclusively governing healthcare regulation and medical negligence, and overrides the earlier statute i.e. Islamabad Consumers Protection Act, 1995 to the extent of inconsistency

Trial Court rightly held that complaint was not maintainable before Consumer Court

High Court declined to interfere in dismissal of complaint by Consumer Court, as the order did not suffer from any legal infirmity

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Authorities were aggrieved of enhancing of compensation in favour of respondents/landowners by Referee Court and the same was maintained by High Court

Validity

Compensation is a very wide term, indicating that land owners, for various reasons, are to be compensated and not merely paid price of land which is just an interaction of supply and demand fixed between a willing buyer and a willing seller

Mere classification or nature of land, can be taken as a relevant consideration for the purposes of determining compensation but it is not an absolute one

Factors such as location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits cannot be disregarded either

Place and situation of acquired land are paramount considerations that must be accorded due and thoughtful attention in the fair assessment of compensation

Supreme Court declined to interfere in compensation assessed and determined by Referee Court as the same was just and reasonable and the Court had adverted to every aspect of the case and advanced valid and cogent reasons in support of its findings

Appeal was dismissed.

During execution proceedings of other landowners, respondents filed application before Executing Court to pay them enhanced compensation as well

Appellant/authorities were aggrieved of admitting of application of respondents/landowners for determination during execution proceedings

Validity

Respondents/landowners could claim compensation as per enhanced rate in the light judgment of Supreme Court in case titled Saddaqat Ali Khan through L.R.s and others v. Collector Land Acquisition and others reported as PLD 2010 SC 878, if at the end they were able to establish that nature and vicinity of both the lands i.e. their lands and lands acquired from other landowners was same

Lands of respondents/landowners were acquired way back in year 1995 and they had received compensation there and then whereas lands of other landowners were acquired after lapse of couple of years

Criteria laid down by Supreme Court would not be applicable simpliciter but required some probe

Supreme Court directed Executing Court to decide the matter expeditiously

Appeal was disposed of.

While determining market value of acquired land, not only existing potentiality and market value of acquired land is to be considered but its future potentiality is also to be considered

Acquiring of land is not a transaction between a willing purchaser and a willing seller, rather it is a transaction which has been enforced upon land owner

While determining market value of acquired land, land owners are not only to be paid market value of acquired land but they are to be compensated in such a manner that in future they may not fell any depravation for striking a losing transaction

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Referee Judge as the same was well reasoned

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant / landowner successfully proved that he had developed a residential town on acquired land, and such fact was ignored by the Collector while determining the compensation

Both the parties failed to produce cogent and convincing evidence in support of their respective contentions

Referee Court appointed Commission which suggested compensation of Rs. 100,000/- per Marla

Referee Court relied on report of the Commission but it provided no reasons for reducing recommended amount to Rs. 30,000/- per Marla

Referee Court decreed compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15% without justification, despite the fact that evidence on record established that respondent authority had assumed the status of a company and in such cases applicable rate should be 25%

Compensation amount recommended by Local Commission was somewhat overestimated and exaggerated, as material facts were not properly considered by the Commission while determining the compensation

Referee Court reduced compensation amount drastically without providing sufficient justification

High Court keeping in view the evidence available on record, the Commission's report, and based on logical deductions and analogical reasoning determined Rs.50,000 per Marla as fair and just compensation and also enhanced compulsory acquisition charges to 25 %, as the respondent authority had acquired the status of a company

Interest at the rate of 6 % was treated as rental value

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Property was privately partitioned and as a result of such partition, all co-owners were assigned specific portions of properties

Such private partition was further strengthened through mutation and after getting their specific portions of holdings, the parties remained in constant possession in exclusion of other co-owners

Private partition was a bona fide transaction and no co-owner ever questioned its validity

As a result of such private partition, respondents/objectors were given property which was later on acquired

Petitioners were excluded from questioning such private settlement

Referee Judge had rightly held that respondents/objectors were entitled to receive amount of compensation of land by answering reference under S. 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in positive

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction declined to interfere in the order passed by Referee Judge

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners claimed compensation of losses suffered by them and sought declaration to the effect that the arbitrary act of impounding, confiscating and detaining their vehicles was unlawful and unconstitutional

Held, that in the last resort in terms of constitutional dispensation, High Court had to answer the aforesaid questions itself in exercise of its powers of judicial review, however, an opportunity was allowed to the Government to determine the validity, constitutionality and legality of the actions complained of by the petitioners in the first instance, particularly when the petitioners had sought immediate compensation from the State regarding their actual losses in terms of burnt/lost goods and vehicles along with appropriate actions against Police and Traffic Officials found involved in unlawful acts which led the petitioners to suffer huge losses and required a thorough impartial and unbiased inquiry for prompt redressal of grievances of the petitioners

Chief Secretary, Punjab, was directed to constitute a committee to thoroughly investigate allegations of the petitioners and if found true, make recommendations to the Government for due compensation to the petitioners and identify the role of Police and Traffic Officials who led the vehicles to the occasion of incidents, which caused losses to the petitioners

Constitutional petitions were disposed of, in circumstances.

Where petitioners previously undertook to satisfy the decree and benefited from adjournments, they stood estopped from subsequently raising limitation as a defence and their conduct amounted to acquiescence and attracted the doctrine of promissory estoppel and a fresh period of limitation was to commence under S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Right to compensation was not extinguished by delay

The statutory scheme under S.31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not extinguish the right to compensation due to delay in claiming or receiving it and the acquiring authority was obligated to pay compensation irrespective of such delay

In the instant case the petitioners challenged the orders passed by the courts below, whereby, the executing court had directed the petitioners (judgment debtors) to deposit the decretal amount for onward distribution to the legal heirs of Respondent No.1 (deceased decree-holder)

The primary controversy between the parties was as to "whether the execution petition filed by the respondents was within limitation and maintainable"

Petitioners contended that the execution petition was time-barred, as the original litigation concluded on 03.03.2004

Petitioners asserted that limitation should run from the finality of litigation on 03.03.2004, hence the execution petition filed on 11.02.2010 was barred by time

High Court observed that on one hand the objections were raised by the petitioners that execution petition was barred by time and petitioners were not bound to pay the remaining amount, and the other side of the picture was whether they were ready to return the land which was acquired for construction of motorway which seemed not possible

If the land acquired was not returnable then point of limitation could not be raised

State institutions were not supposed to hide behind technicalities and they were required to fulfill the cause of substantial justice

Apart from this, S.31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 required payment of subject land at very initial stage and it was nowhere provided that in case of non-receiving of compensation or approaching for the same with delay, the right to receive the compensation would be extinguished

Apart from making partial payment of compensation of land acquired from respondents they kept on promising and gaining time for satisfaction of decree during the execution proceedings, thus acquiescence and promissory estoppel came in the way when point of limitation was raised

As per S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 after acknowledgments, which were made by the petitioners, a fresh period of limitation was to be computed

No illegality, legal infirmity, jurisdictional defect, mis-reading, non-reading of record was found in the impugned order

The objection that execution was time-barred was held to be legally untenable

Civil revision being devoid of merits was dismissed.

Plea raised by appellant / Authority was that Referee Court neither took into consideration market value of land nor report of field staff

Validity

Evidence brought on record by parties was to be seen in its entirety, stressing less qua obligation of onus to prove and applying principle of preponderance of evidence

Appellant / Authority succeeded to prove that amount of compensation determined by Referee Court was exorbitant

Referee Court did not properly appreciate material / evidence brought on record, including report of field staff, facts of the case, applicable law and dictum laid down by superior Courts while passing decision in question

None of the members of District Price Assessment Committee was produced in evidence to explain criteria adopted by it while fixing price

Award as well as decree passed by Referee Court did not reflect independent assessment by Land Acquisition Collector and Referee Court keeping in view the complexions and character of acquired land

High Court reduced compensation awarded by Referee Court, keeping in view the report of field staff

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

The Irrigation department took possession of appellants' (land owners) land without notice or legal acquisition causing damage to the land constraining them to file a Constitutional petition, whereby, the authorities were directed to issue an award

The appellants (land owners) were offered Rs.438,00 per acre which they accepted under protest and subsequently filed a Land Acquisition Reference claiming Rs. 400,000 per acre along with interest and damages

The reference was dismissed by the Trial Court against which present appeal was preferred

The points for determination by the High Court were as to: (i) Whether valuation of the land was assessed in award in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to claim the benefits conferred under S.34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (iii) Whether the appellants were eligible for the benefits outlined under S.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (iv) Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation for damages

Held: To answer the first point, by virtue of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the "Act") the market value of the acquired land was to be assessed as of the date of the publication of the notification under S.4(1) of the Act and it was evident that the land acquisition officer had correctly determined the valuation of the land in accordance with the relevant provisions

To answer the second point the land acquisition officer failed to adhere to the mandatory requirement of law by not awarding interest under S.34 of the Act

The rights of landowners were not only safeguarded under the Act but were also enshrined in Art.23 and 24 of the Constitution which provisions unequivocally guaranteed the rights of citizens

Since the award dated 02.02.2011 passed by the land acquisition officer revealed that possession was taken over by the acquiring agency after issuance of notification under S.4 of the Act dated 18.8.1988 and the final payment was made on 27.04.2011, as per the bank statement filed by the law officer, respondent No. 3 (Land Acquisition officer) was directed to modify the award and include interest from the date of possession as determined in the award till payment of the award (27.04.2011)

To answer the third point regarding grant of benefit of S.28-A of the Act, it was evident that the said provision had been omitted through S.4 of the Land Acquisition (Sindh Amendment) Act 2009 (Act No.XVI of 2010)

To answer the fourth point, upon meticulous examination of the evidence adduced by the appellants (land owners) and their witnesses, it was evident that they had failed to furnish any cogent or substantive material to support their claim

There existed no legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the findings of the Trial Court in denying the claim of damages

As no case of damages had been successfully demonstrated by the appellants (land owners), the findings of the Trial Court stood fully substantiated and were, therefore, maintained

Respondent No.3/land acquisition officer was directed to amend the award by incorporating interest accrued on the principal amount from date of possession as determined in the award until 27.4.2011 (the date when the amount was disbursed to the appellants-land owners), in accordance with the provisions of S.34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894

Furthermore, if any sum was erroneously granted to the appellant under S.28-A of the said Act same would be deducted accordingly

Appeal was disposed of, in circumstances.

The acquiring agency is under an obligation to compensate the landowner by paying the requisite amount, including the accrued interest

The fundamental principle underpinning the provision of payment is that the party dispossessed of its property is deprived of any profit or usufruct from the date possession is taken

If the collector fails to effect payment prior to taking possession, the affected party is entitled to interest from that date

This principle is analogous to that in a contractual sale and purchase of land, wherein the purchaser is obligated to pay interest on the unpaid purchase amount from the date of possession

When the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the collector shall pay the amount awarded with compound interest at the rate of eight per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited; provided that any waiver of the above right by the land owner shall be void and he shall be entitled to the said interest notwithstanding agreement to the contrary.

Petitioners claimed recovery of alleged unpaid amount of compensation with interest, dating back to 15-9-1975 up to the present date, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Validity

Petitioners' claims were grounded on fraud and based on fictitious documents

Petitioners managed to prolong the proceedings for years, wasting the Court's valuable time

Actions of petitioners were not only vexatious but also abuse of judicial process

One of the two petitioners deceitfully extracted a sum of Rs.3,743,181/- by misleading Court into granting orders in his favour

These were the cases where imposition of special costs were fully justified

Assertion made by authorities that entire claims of both petitioners were fraudulent and based on forged documents was enough to dismiss the petitions

Fraudulent conduct of petitioners had disqualified them from receiving any favourable judgment

High Court directed the petitioners to deposit costs of Rs.2,000,000/- (Rupees Two Million) each

High Court directed one of the petitioners who had already received a sum of Rs.3,743,181/- as alleged compensation, to return/redeposit the amount

High Court further directed that in case any petitioner failed to deposit his respective amounts within the stipulated period, the office of High Court would immediately fix the matters in Court for further orders

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / Ministry of Interior Employees Cooperative Housing Society (MIECHS) sought direction to respondent / Capital Development Authority (CDA) to pay compensation and complete process of acquisition initiated in year, 2009

Plea raised by respondent / CDA was that no period was specified for payment of compensation

Validity

Mere fact that S. 29 of Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 does not specify period within which payment of compensation is to be made to landowners for their acquired land does not mean that CDA has a free hand to make the payment as and when it takes its fancy

Deputy Commissioner has to proceed to pay the compensation awarded to interested party, as under regulation 15(1) of Land Acquisition Regulation, 1961, it has been provided that "as soon as possible after the award"

Respondent / CDA claimed to have acquired a total of 641 Kanals and 13 marlas of land of petitioner / MIECHS whereas, according to petitioner / MIECHS, 682 Kanals and 15 marlas was acquired

Such dispute could not be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court as it required recording of evidence

High Court declined to rely upon list of different chunks of land attached by petitioner / MIECHS allegedly owned by MIECHS in different Khasra numbers in Revenue Estate concerned, as the same was not an official document

High Court set-aside the compensation payable to petitioner / MIECHS on the ground that despite lapse of fifteen years from the date of pronouncement of award (i.e. 15-01-2009), no compensation was paid

High Court allowed respondent / CDA to initiate fresh process for determination of present market value of petitioner's / MIECHS's land in accordance with the law

Constitutional petition allowed accordingly.

Petitioners' (land owners) grievance was related to the Order, dated 22.04.2014,of the Referee Court, but instead they impugned the Order of the Collector, dated 02.11.2011

Order of the Collector made it quite clear that the Referee Court was being sent the Reference petition for disposal under sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act') only and not under section 18 of the Act, as the reference on the face of it was barred by limitation

Award was passed on 11.10.2010, and the Reference petition was filed before the Collector by the petitioners, on 26.10.2011, exactly a year later

Petitioners were indeed barred by time by virtue of section 18 of the Act and thus the Collector's Order accurately referred the matter to the Referee Court under sections 30 and 31 of the Act only

Moreover, it was a matter of record that notification under section 4 of the Act was duly issued on 06.03.2010 and endorsement to that effect was duly issued on 07.09.2010, whereafter the petitioners filed their objections, which were duly considered by the Collector before passing the award on 11.10.2010

This simple fact alone pointed out that the petitioners took part in acquisition process and that the Reference petition before the Collector filed on 26.10.2011 was merely an afterthought, perhaps intended to get more money for their land

Moreover, it was also an admitted position that no appeal, as required under section 18-B of the Act, was filed by the petitioners against the said award

Petitioners realized the fault in their legal strategy, therefore, impugned the Order dated 02.11.2011 of the Collector rather than that of the Referee Court before the High Court

However, the High Court realized this and quite rightly held that the challenge to the Collector's Order was time barred and attracted the doctrine of laches

Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Mechanism provided under S. 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is to be considered for determining amount of compensation to be awarded to landowners for compulsorily acquiring their property, includes market value of land at the date of publication of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; damages sustained by the person interested by reason of his construction; and deprivation of running business by forced displacement

Next best method is to take into consideration instance of sale of adjacent land in neighboring locality; its potentialities and its likelihood of developing and improvement; and past sale would also be a necessary factor for determining rate of compensation

Property in question was situated in urban area within the limit of Municipal Corporation

Deputy Commissioner/Collector Quetta, earlier in year 2011, while giving award of adjacent property/land also acquired land for public purpose namely "construction of flyover at Sariab Phattak Quetta", wherein compensation of Rs.5000/-, Rs.4200/- and Rs.3500/- per square feet was fixed and after seven years of the above award, price of the land in question escalated as the land was situated in mid of the city of Quetta and most properties were commercial in nature

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Referee Court, as documentary evidence was not refuted by authorities and judgment/decree was in accordance with settled principle of law and based on correct appreciation of evidence on record

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

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.

Appellants/Authorities did not produce any plausible evidence to show any defect in determination of value by Referee Court

Witnesses produced by appellants/ authorities had no proximity or personal knowledge of the matters, touching determination of compensation

Absence of knowledge regarding material facts could not be construed or inferred as affirmation of actual facts

In Award filing of objections by respondents/landowners was mentioned, however no reasons were mentioned which prevailed upon Land Acquisition Collector to reject those objections

Award was based upon value assessed by District Price Assessment Committee (which was approved by Board of Revenue), however none of the members was produced in evidence to explain criteria adopted by the Committee while fixing the price

Award did not reflect independent assessment by Land Acquisition Collector keeping in view the complexion and character of acquired land, especially when respondents specifically asserted that their land was situated on a main road

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Referee Court enhancing compensation in favour of respondents/land owners

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant was land acquiring authority and aggrieved of enhancing of compensation regarding acquired land owned by respondent / landowner

Plea raised by appellant / authority was that all documents relied upon by Referee Court were exhibited during statement of counsel for respondent / landowner

Validity

Respondent / landowner got exhibited as many as seventeen (17) documents during statement of his counsel

Referee Court as well as both the parties in total oblivion of legal position had allowed those documents to be exhibited

Such exercise was not permissible under well-established principles of law

Best evidence helpful to resolve the controversy was lost which had seriously affected precious rights of parties

High Court directed for strict adherence of such principle to ensure substantial justice and to save parties from substantial loss

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction reduced the compensation from Rs.2,000,000/- per Acre to Rs.1,500,000/- along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and compound interest at the rate of 8% from the date of possession of acquired land to date of payment of enhanced amount of compensation

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Respondents/decree holders (beneficiaries) instituted a suit for damages and compensation on account of fatal accident, which was decreed ex parte in favour of beneficiaries

Decretal amount was deposited with the State Bank of Pakistan, but was not released to the beneficiaries

Penal interest was claimed by the beneficiaries for not releasing the decretal amount with interest

Contention of the petitioner was that since the amount had been deposited with the Court, therefore, beneficiaries could not claim penal interest

Validity

High Court held that Government of Sindh was objecting to the release of the amount even at that point in time when they preferred second appeal

There was no doubt that whatever the accrued amount would have been, it was to be disbursed amongst the legal heirs but as long as the amount was not paid and realized by the beneficiaries, the judgment and decree could not be deemed to have been satisfied and the amount of interest would continue to accumulate, and deposit alone at a belated stage was not enough to discharge the judgment-debtor from the claim of interest piled up during the period it was not released to the beneficiaries

High Court repelled the contention of the petitioner that it was on account of Court's error that the amount was not released as it was always objected to by the Government of Sindh, hence, the petitioner was under an obligation to pay the interest till it was completely realized by the beneficiaries and/or the decree was satisfied

Judgment and decree was not challenged before an appellate forum as no material was placed before the High Court, therefore, the interest would continue to pile up till its realization

By payment of additional amount for the unaccounted period and release of it to the beneficiaries, the decree had been satisfied

High Court was exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution and thus could not probe further as the challenge in this appeal was neither an order which was unconstitutional nor any jurisdictional error was exposed in the exercise conducted by two forums below, thus, on this score also present petition lacked the ingredients that could enable the High Court to interfere with the orders of the executing Court in respect of the amount, which had already been released to the beneficiaries

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Appellants/land owners being aggrieved of compensation determined by Land Acquisition Officer filed an appeal before the Referee Court but the same was dismissed by holding that the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer was according to law

Validity

Nothing on record was available to show that any notice was ever issued by the Collector before proceedings in the matter for determining the award/compensation ex-parte against the appellants

Said fact clearly deprived the appellants to rebut the case of the respondents

However, even in ex-parte proceedings the claimant was not absolved from proving his case as he was required to stand on his own legs

Land Acquisition Officer had used very fanciful wording in the Award wherein he said that "one had to offer gold for gold and not copper for gold to landowners"

However, Land Acquisition Officer completely failed to appreciate that he could not evaluate the land on the basis of future or expected improvements in the land

First and foremost consideration before the Land Acquisition Officer had to be the market value of the land as envisaged under subsection (1) of S. 23 of the Act

Land Acquisition Officer, who issued the Award impugned before the Referee Court as well as the Mukhtiarkar, who issued the valuation certificate, both were not examined by the Court

Land Acquisition Officer was a material witness and was to recognize the award issued by him before the Referee Court and he was also to be confronted with regard to the material on the basis of which he passed the award by fixing the rate of the land at Rs.450,000/- per acre

Similarly, the Mukhtiarkar was also required to step into the witness box to satisfy the Court about the correctness of the valuation certificate and his competence to issue the valuation certificate

Referee Court observed that "Land Acquisition Officer, (who passed the award), neither appeared in the witness box nor filed any written statement as per record, therefore, the burden laid upon the appellants as to whether rate given by respondent No.1/ Land Acquisition Officer in his award was not according to law

Initial burden was on the Land Acquisition Officer to show that the award was in accordance with law and the rate of land per acre was in conformity with the prevailing market rate of the land

Non-appearance of the Land Acquisition Officer as a witness was being made a ground to shift the burden on the appellants

Witness of the appellants claimed that the acquired land was situated about eight to ten KMs away from city while the respondent No.2 claimed that the acquired land fell within the city

Nothing was on record as to how that dispute was resolved by the Land Acquisition Officer and in whose favour

Land Acquisition Officer had observed that in order to avoid litigation, he had allowed rate of Rs.450,000/- per acre

Once again, avoidance of litigation was not a ground to be taken into consideration

Respondent No.2 had made a bald statement regarding the rate of land without any supporting evidence, which could not be accepted

Appeal was accordingly accepted by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Referee Court and the case was remanded to the Referee Court for decision afresh after recording evidence.

In the present case considering that the land was acquired for a single project, the Supreme Court in the judgment under review affirmed the value assigned by the High Court to the acquired land for the reason that the original value as determined by the Collector and the Referee Court was based on revenue classifications which have no relevance for the purposes of calculating compensation

Furthermore, when land is acquired in small parcels, awarding compensation based on revenue classifications to small parcels of land is to the disadvantage of the landowners, because it undermines the potential value of the large parcels of land acquired for a single project

Consequently, the uniform valuation for the entire land acquired for the project possessed justification

Calculation of potential value of acquired land by a Court of law starting from the referee Court up to the Supreme Court cannot be left to their discretionary assessment

There must be guidelines framed by the competent legislative or regulatory bodies for determining the potential value of the land acquired for various types of public purpose projects

No ground was found to interfere with the judgment under review

Review petitions were dismissed.

Factors to be considered when determining potential value of the acquired land stated.

Constitutional dimension of the right to compensation stated.

Land acquired falling within different categories such as Chahi Aabi Selab, Maira Rakkar Lass, Banjar Qadeem and Ghair Mumkin

Question as to whether the acquired land could be treated as one large area for purpose of determining compensation

Held, that measuring the land in small parcels, based on ownership and revenue classifications is to the disadvantage of the landowners, because it undermines the potential value particularly when the acquisition is of a large area of land for a single project

In such a situation, the landowners must be given the benefit of the potential value of the entire area being acquired and not just small pieces of land, so as to ensure that the landowners are compensated as per the expected reasonable capacity of land use

Where land is acquired for one project, the potential value of the entire area being acquired is relevant as the very purpose of the acquisition suggests that the land has future prospects.

Authorities allowed compensation for the period starting from three months after receipt of appellate order and rejected the claim for period during which order under S. 120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was operative

In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed compensation for the year as well against which the authorities filed an appeal before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue

Validity

Authorities did not dispute that compensation was due on account of delayed refund

Only dispute was regarding one of the periods in question for which compensation was denied

Provision of S.171(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was clear and unequivocal, which had obliged the Commissioner to pay to taxpayer a further amount by way of compensation where refund due to taxpayer was not paid within three months of the date on which it had become due

Two forums below were right in holding that for the purpose of S.171(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, refund became due on the date of assessment order made under S.120(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

High Court decided question of law in favour of respondents / taxpayers

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Acquisition process employed to deprive someone of his property, was an exception that was visualized by the Constitution

Process must be in consonance with conditions, parameters and manner as laid down in Art. 24(2) & (3) of the Constitution

Even if property of any person was taken over for a public purpose, the person being deprived of his property had to be given adequate, fair, just and due compensation

Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had Constitutional backing as the same was covered under the Exception as contained in Art. 24(2) of the Constitution

Acquired land was located on main road, in the vicinity of major bypass road crossing and was situated near various residential colonies

Land in question possessed potential significance in future

Referee Court while determining/enhancing award amount from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.12,000/-, observed that appellants/land owners failed to place on record any valuation table existing at the time of publication of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and provision of S.23(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had provided that in determining amount of compensation to be awarded of the land value of the land at the date of publication of notification under S. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was to be considered

High Court modified judgment of Referee Court by enhancing compensation amount of acquired land of appellants/landowners from Rs.12,000/- per Marla to Rs.40,000/

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Witness of respondents/acquiring body admitted that bungalow was to fetch more price as compared to a small house or a hut

House in question was in the vicinity of commercial area facing thoroughfare and was in the midst of commercial activities as admitted by the witness of the acquiring

Respondents/acquiring body failed to assess true value of the house nor took into consideration the factors for assessing the value

Commercialization of area of land in question was already permitted by City District Government Karachi

Fair market value of the land was not determined by respondents/acquiring body as per guidelines established for such calculations

Value asserted by applicant/property owner was fully supported by valuation certificates and the same remained un-challenged by respondents/acquiring body

High Court declared that reasons were a decree and statement of grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of S. 2(2) and (9), C.P.C.

High Court enhanced compensation of property as per value proved by applicant/property owner but mark-up was reduced at the rate of 5% instead of 15%

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Contention of land owners was that their land had high potential value as the same was situated on main road and its market value was not less than Rupees 700/- per sq-ft

Validity

Revenue authorities and Trial Court based their decision/judgment on existing potentiality of acquired land

Factors of its future potentiality was totally ignored and as such on face of record, they erred in determining market value of acquired land

While determining market value of acquired land, multiple factors including its location, existing potentiality, proximity to road or any commercial building and over and above its future prospects had to be considered

Both the forums below did not properly fix market value of acquired land

No material was available on record on the basis of which Trial Court fixed Rupees 300/- per sq-ft, as the whole evidence either spoke of Rupees 700/- per sq-ft, or at least of Rupees 500/- per sq-ft

Location of acquired land was 100 meters from main Swat-Kalam Road and there existed commercial buildings including petrol pumps, markets, shops

High Court by applying such yardstick modified order of Trial Court by enhancing compensation of acquired land from Rupees 300/- per sq-ft to Rupees 500/-per sq-ft along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners were land owners and their grievance was that Additional Deputy Commissioner could not have decided the matter on behalf of Deputy Commissioner with regard to forwarding of References to Referee Court for enhancement of compensation

Validity

Authority or public functionary could delegate its function to any other person / officer if statue under which it was performing function, provided for delegation of such power

In absence of such statutory delegation, authority / public functionary, was not competent to delegate its functions / powers

Reference under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by land owners / objectors was to be dealt with by Collector itself or by an officer who was appointed by Board of Revenue or Commissioner to act as Collector of a district

Collector under no circumstances could entrust a Reference to any other person / officer to deal with it as his delegatee

Collector was not legally authorized to delegate his functions to Additional Deputy Commissioner, to deal with Reference of petitioners as under Land Acquisition Act 1894, he was not bestowed upon with such power of delegation of his functions to any other person or officer

High Court declared all proceedings conducted and orders passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, as illegal, unlawful and ineffective upon rights of petitioners

High Court remanded the matter to Collector for decision afresh after hearing the petitioners

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Plea raised by land owner was that land in question was commercial in nature whereas it was treated as residential for the purposes of compensation

Validity

Use of land at the time of acquisition was also to be considered a factor to determine its status/classification

Revenue record could not be the exclusive criteria to determine its value and potential

Classification of land in dispute was determined on the basis of revenue record

Adjoining land was classified as "commercial" and compensation was assessed accordingly

Potential of the land was also ignored as many factories in running position were also existing adjacent to appellant's factory, which was acquired by the authorities

High Court set aside findings recorded by Referee Court and enhanced compensation of land as per commercial status

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Main criteria for determination of market value is the price which a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller if they were to enter the transaction voluntarily and at arms-length.

Prices go up in the locality concerned, as soon as the information that government is about to acquire land in that vicinity reaches owners of property in that locality.

Mutations of sale in recent past were produced by landowners to prove market value of land but Trial Court dismissed the reference and maintained the award

Validity

Landowners were to prove mutations by adducing evidence either of vendor or vendee or witnesses passing consideration under mutations, to prove that sale transactions were genuine transactions between willing vendor and willing vendee

Landowners did not prove that consideration passed represented prevailing market value and lands under acquisition and lands concerning sale were similarly situated and possessed of same or similar nature, advantage etc.

No evidence was brought on record from independent source that land had an orchard and had also come into commercial area

Potential value of land could not be determined on the basis of mere oral assertion of landowners

Landowners failed to discharge burden of proving market value as well as potential value of land

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court and maintained compensation fixed by authorities

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Land owned by petitioner was acquired and reference for enhancing of compensation was not forwarded to Referee Court as the same was barred by limitation

Validity

Collector Land Acquisition had ample powers to examine/scrutiny of reference petition before forwarding the same to Referee Court concerned

During examination of reference petition if Collector had found the reference petition of petitioners barred by time, he could have dismissed the reference petition without forwarding the same to Referee Court

Collector Land Acquisition had rightly dismissed the reference petition of petitioners as the same was time barred

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Acquiring agency was aggrieved of compensation enhanced in favour of landowners by Referee Court on basis of report submitted by local commission

Validity

Local Commissioner had not conducted commission proceedings in accordance with terms of its appointment

If local commission failed to conduct proceedings in accordance with terms of its appointment, then court could appoint a fresh local commission in order to reach a proper conclusion

Commission proceedings in matters of land acquisition were of great significance and played a vital and decisive role in determining true and real market value of acquired land

Landowners were always deprived of their lands against their will by resorting to compulsory acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Amount of compensation in most of acquisition proceedings was determined on basis of one year average which was not true and real determining factor

For determination of true and accurate compensation, appointment of local commission was essential

High Court directed the appointment of a fresh local commission with consent of parties for ascertaining true and accurate market value of acquired land with reference to its location, potentiality, proximity to road, building sites and its future prospects

Case was remanded accordingly.

Acquiring agency assailed the order of the trial court whereby it was directed to deposit compound interest along with compensation amount in the court

Validity

Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 specifically provided that the person whose land was acquired by the government for utilization for "public purpose" was entitled to compound interest from the date of taking possession till payment of compensation

Possession of the land of respondents had also not been taken by the acquiring agency, therefore, respondents were not entitled to receive compound interest

Respondents had also not claimed compound interest in their reference petition

Referee Judge had committed material irregularity and illegality while directing the acquiring agency to deposit compound interest along with compensation

Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution asserted motive but failed to prove the same and such failure had reacted against sentence of death passed on charge of murder

"Something else" was going on in family which had led to occurrence in question but that "something" had been completely suppressed by prosecution although, some indication in that regard was made by accused in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Supreme Court exercised caution in the matter of sentence of death awarded to accused and reduced the same to imprisonment for life on each count of charge

Amount of compensation ordered by Trial Court to be paid to heirs of each deceased was excessive and same was reduced to Rs. 100,000/- to heirs of each deceased under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C.

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Husband of widow was police constable who died in bomb blast and Government announced compensation package and other facilities to bereaved family

Deceased was issueless, therefore, succession certificate was issued in favour of widow and parents of the deceased

Parents of deceased assailed succession certificate in favour of widow on the plea that she had contracted second marriage and got revised succession certificate issued in their favour

Civil suit filed by parents of widow was decreed in their favour

Validity

Widow could not be deprived of her share in view of first succession certificate issued by Trial Court as on such date she was widow of the deceased; her second marriage could not operate retrospectively but Trial Court without considering such aspect of matter passed decree in favor of parents of deceased which could not be sustained except share of salary she received during subsistence of second marriage

Deceased was issueless and parents of deceased who were living with deceased and were dependents were included in the family

Revised succession certificate was issued by Trial Court with consent of both the parties and thereafter, separate certificate was issued respectively

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside judgment passed by Trial court but maintained order regarding salary of deceased received by widow to extent of her share during subsistence of second marriage

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Appellant sought enhancement of compensation amount and respondent through cross-appeal sought dismissal of reference application

Validity

'Qabaz ul Wasol' did not reflect recording of protest by the appellant at the time of receipt of compensation

Appellant in the reference application did not mention that the amount of compensation was received by him under protest

Authority in its written reply before trial court had taken a specific objection regarding the maintainability of the reference application on the ground that the amount of compensation was received by the appellant without recording his protest

Reference application filed by the appellant was not maintainable

Appeal filed by appellant was dismissed and that of Authority was allowed, consequently judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside.

Pre-requisites to be followed by a Magistrate before payment of compensation, enumerated.

Award of fair market value is Fundamental Right of a party whose land has been acquired.

Award of fair market value as compensation for acquired land is as much the duty and responsibility of acquiring agency as it is the right of landowner to receive the same

Putting the onus to receive fair market value of land on land owners who move Court by filing reference under S. 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a wrong practice

Necessary issue which is required to be framed in all references applications under S. 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be as to what is the fair market value of acquired land and or the compensation to be awarded to land owner and onus to prove such issue primarily should be on the Collector.

Landowner was dissatisfied with award of compensation announced by Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, he preferred reference before Referee Court for enhancement of the same

Referee Court declined to interfere in the matter and maintained the award

Validity

Referee Court did not proceed on correct premise in rejecting the claim of landowner

Many persons preferred reference applications which were joined together and consolidated evidence was recorded

Number of documents including mutations and awards that were tendered in evidence by parties were on record which also included Aks Shjra, and the same was not discussed by Referee Court

Referee Court was not denuded of its powers to itself call in evidence, the revenue authorities to ascertain true location of land comprising in mutations relied on by landowner, which mutations otherwise pertained to the period recognized as relevant by S. 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed against landowner and remanded the matter to Referee Court for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Plaintiffs (land owners) instituted suit for recovery of compound interest of the acquired land which was decreed by the Trial Court

Contention of authorities was that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter with regard to compound interest and only Reference Court was competent to deal with the said matter

Validity

Land of plaintiffs was acquired for construction of road

Award of acquired land was passed and compensation amount was paid to the plaintiffs

No compound interest was included in the said award by the Collector Land Acquisition

Plaintiffs were entitled to get compound interest @ 8% per annum from the time of taking of possession of their land until it had been paid or deposited

Plaintiffs, in the present case, had accepted the award and had not challenged the same

Plaintiffs had claimed compound interest from the date of taking possession of their land till payment of compensation amount to them

Plaintiffs, in circumstances, could file suit or writ petition for obtaining compound interest

Trial/Executing Court was directed by the Chief Court to re-assess/re-compute the compound interest through an expert officer of National Bank at the time of execution of decree/judgment

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Referee Judge enhanced compensation amount from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 3,35,000/- along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Collector Land Acquisition was to take into consideration the damage affecting the property movable or immovable or earning while determining the compensation amount

If in consequence of the acquisition of land the person interested was compelled to change his residence or place of business then reasonable expenses incidental to such change should also be taken into consideration

Court was not to take into consideration any damage which was likely to be caused to the land acquired after the publication of declaration

Compensation amount, in the present case, had been enhanced up to Rs. 3,35,000/- without considering the claim of the landowner in his application before the Reference Judge

Landowner had claimed only Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation

Order for enhancement of compensation was not justified

Increased amount could not be allowed to the landowner

Landowner was only entitled for compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Impugned judgment was modified by the Supreme Court to that extent

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Compensation price was enhanced to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/- Hael and Rs. 6,00,000/- for Mera Awal, per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges

Validity

Suit land was situated within the municipal limits

Land in question was highly precious being utilized as agricultural land

Collector, Land Acquisition while assessing the compensation had failed to consider all the factors i.e. the location of land; the potential of the land for which it was being used; its use to which it could be put

Notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 27-01-2005 and award was issued on 17-05-2007

Method for determination of market value of the land was to take into consideration the sale deeds pertaining to the same village which had been registered prior to issuance of said notification or immediately thereafter

Reliance upon the sale deeds registered during the period of one year prior to the issuance of notification under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not a sole criterion rather sale deeds registered after the said notification were also relevant and compensation had to be assessed in the light of said sale deeds

Landowners had been deprived of the source of income after acquisition of said land

Large pieces of land were not available for sale in the said municipal limits and small pieces of land had been acquired

Sale deeds of small pieces of land could validly be relied upon for determination of market value for the purpose of determination of compensation

Valuation table was the best method for determination of market value of the land

Market value of the land according to valuation table issued by the District Collector was Rs. 1,10,000/- per marla in the village

Landowners were entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per marla irrespective of kind of land along with compulsory acquisition charges

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Compensation

Landowners proved their case to the extent of number of trees but failed to prove their case to the extent of increase of rate and interest

Trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion on the basis of expert's report that land owners were entitled to receive Rs.16199/- per tree as per expert report

Authorities succeeded to prove price of trees and average rate of tree was given to land owners as per prescribed assessment as given to other land owner, who failed to rebut the assessment and also failed to produce experts as per direction of the Supreme Court

Land owner had received their full and final settlement and nothing remained due to the authorities

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners sought recovery of compensation for deaths and damages caused by accidental air strike by an aircraft of Pakistan Air Force

Validity

Death certificates and medical reports of all injured were available on file and were not touched by anyone which affirmed the stance of petitioners and it went un-rebutted

When deaths/injuries/collateral damages were established on record, then by keeping in view guaranteed Constitutional and Fundamental Rights, legal heirs of all deceased, as per available record, who suffered injuries and collateral damage of their houses were entitled for compensation

High Court directed Federal Government to pay compensation amount to true legal heirs of each deceased, injured and for damages caused due to the incident

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Authorities did not deny entitlement of petitioners but due to change in law, they were ready to pay compensation equal to the value of plot at the time of acquisition of land

Validity

Authorities were bound to give alternative plot in lieu of exempt plot to petitioner and other legal heirs of petitioner's father against the land acquired

In case there was no alternative vacant plot available, then they were entitled to cash compensation as per current market value of the plot

High Court directed the authorities to allot alternative plot to petitioner and other legal heirs of petitioner's father in lieu of the plot of the same value and measurement/description or as an alternative pay cash compensation at current market rate of plot

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.