Acquisition of Land

Respondents/land owners being aggrieved from amount of compensation by the Collector filed reference before Referee Court, which was accepted while enhancing the price merely on the basis of report submitted by the Commission, which finding as to price was upheld by the High Court upon appeal preferred by the appellants

Validity

Landowners failed to present any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim as to market value

Mere report of the Commission, which stated that the land is situated adjacent to the road and there exists some shops, could not serve as the sole basis for the Reference Judge to fix the compensation, particularly when, in the same award, the compensation for land acquired in the adjacent village had been determined by Supreme Court

Upon comparing the nature of the land in question with the land in the adjacent village, it became evident that the Reference Judge erred in enhancing the compensation beyond amount fixed by Supreme Court and failed to take into account several crucial factors that were relevant to the determination of fair compensation

While determining the compensation, the existence of the land within the municipal limits, its proximity to the main city, and its accessibility to essential infrastructure, are also to be taken into account

Acquired land was situated at a far-flung area, the nature of which was hilly, thus, Referee Judge was not justified to fix the compensation at the enhanced rate and the High Court had also failed to consider these crucial aspects while determining the compensation, hence, the same was not sustainable

Civil appeal was accepted and judgment of High Court was set aside, in circumstances.

Under subsection (2) of S.12 of the Act, 1894 where notice has been issued to the claimant within six weeks from the receipt of notice, the period of filing reference is six months.

Clause (a) of subsection 2 of S. 18 of the Act of 1894 provides that where the person himself or represented by any one before the collector at the time award is made, the party who is aggrieved from the award can file objection to the collector within six weeks from the date of award, whereas, clause (b) of subsection (2) of S.18 of the Act, 1894 provides that for other cases within six weeks of receipt of the notice from collector under S.12(2) or within six months from the date of the collector's award.

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.

Primary aim of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to safeguard public funds.

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.

Compensation declared through award was Rs.450,000/- per marla against which determination, landowners approached Referee /Trial Court, however, upon conclusion of trial, potential value of land was determined as Rs 5,000/- per Marla only

Validity

Relevant paragraph of the judgment passed by the Referee /Trial Court revealed that it (Court) determined impugned compensation (of Rs.5,000/- per Marla) while relying on a Notification having been placed/exhibited before it

High Court examined said Notification / Document but found it difficult to connect determined potential value of land of Rs.5,000/- per marla to the entry in Notification/document

Strangely , the compensation declared through award was Rs.450,000/- per marla and Referee Court determined potential value at Rs.5,000/- per Marla, which presented a ludicrous situation

It was nobody's case that any typographical or arithmetical mistake or inadvertent omission occurred while passing the impugned judgment impugned as none of the parties had filed any application with the Referee Court in said behalf

Thus, remanding the matter for determination of quantum of compensation was only option to resolve the conundrum

High Court set-aside impugned judgment passed by the Referee / Trial Court and remanded the matter to Referee Court for determination of the amount of compensation of the land-in-question in the light of the evidence recorded and available

Appeals were allowed accordingly.

Respondents / landowners being dissatisfied with the compensation preferred a Reference and Referee Court enhanced the compensation

Validity

Respondents / landowners were debarred to file Reference claiming enhancement of compensation as they did not record any protest at the time of receipt of compensation

Documentary evidence was produced on behalf of respondents / landowners by their counsel in his statement whereas it was mandatory requirement of law that documents relied upon should be produced in evidence by the party in its own statement so that the adverse party could have a fair opportunity to cross-examine the same

Documents produced by respondents / landowners lacked intrinsic value and such documents were validly excluded from consideration

High Court set aside compensation fixed by Referee Court and dismissed Reference filed by respondents / landowners

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Appellant/land owner was aggrieved of judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court whereby de-notification of acquired land was set-aside

Validity

Land in question was included in notification dated 06-11-1980 issued under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894and notification dated 05-01-1981 was issued under S. 13 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Award of Khasra number in question was not announced and proceedings to acquire its possession were initiated to the extent of 01-Kanal 15 Marla only, which did not include land of appellant

No party can be expected to wait indefinitely, as Government acquires its valuable right to the immovable property

If Government or its acquiring department did not have the funds, it should have made up its mind quickly and that too before taking possession and should have told the landowners where they stood

Land acquisition process started decades ago, and landowners were struggling to get their legitimate rights

No law could condone indolence of respondent-Lahore Development Authority

Respondent/ Commissioner Lahore Division, taking into account the conduct of respondent/LDA, was justified to de-notify land of appellant measuring 04-Kanal comprising Khasra number in question

Intra Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

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.

Petitioners (landowners) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court assailing land acquisition process for the development of Peak Capacity Solar PV Project to be acquired by National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC) (the company tasked with the assignment of implementation of the project)

Held, that it was not for the High Court to review or assess as to what was the urgency to take possession, which assessment had to be made by the Commissioner

In fact, the opinion expressed by the Commissioner and assessment of element urgency for the purposes of taking possession of the land called for showing deference

Nothing was alleged that how composite Notification under Ss. 17(4) & 6 of the Act 1894 had prejudiced the petitioners and upon issuance of Notification under reference, Ss. 5 & 5-A of the Act, 1894 had no application

There was no occasion, in the circumstances of the case, to undermine the concept of eminent domain and jurisprudence developed vis-à-vis "the taking clause", which acknowledged the right to fair and just compensation against the acquisition of land for public purpose

Nothing was pleaded with regard to alleged denial of compensation and right to disagree to the quantum of compensation determined or to seek enhancement thereof was neither prejudiced nor denied

Hence, no cause was apparently available to invoke judicial review jurisdiction

Once land was required for public purpose, interference by exercising judicial review jurisdiction tantamount to throwing spanner in the works

Constitutional petition, filed by the landowners was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners (landowners) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court assailing land acquisition process for the development of Peak Capacity Solar PV Project to be acquired by National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC), (the company tasked with the assignment of implementation of the project)

Objection raised was that Notification under Ss. 17(4) & 6 of the Act, 1894, was issued by non-relevant Commissioner (Rawalpindi) and not by the concerned Commissioner (Dera Ghazi Khan)

Validity

Notification in question started with the sentence that "Whereas it appears to the Commissioner Dera Ghazi Khan ………"

Notification was signed by the Commissioner, with other signatories, which, inter alia, included the District Collector, Land Acquisition Collector and the Engineer; this lent credence to the argument regarding typographical mistake in mentioning Commissioner Rawalpindi, once, in the Notification

Constitutional petition, filed by land-owners, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners (landowners) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court assailing land acquisition process asserting violation of S. 230 of the Elections Act, 2017

Validity

No significant procedural defect, misuse or abdication of authority and illegality in exercise of powers was established

No question of violation of S. 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, arose when Notification under S. 4 and Notification under section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act 1894'), were issued before assumption of control by Caretaker Government at federal level

Land was acquired for the National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC)/, the Company, which was tasked to undertake a project having benefits and advantages for the public

Constitutional petition, filed by land-owners, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners (landowners) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court assailing land acquisition process for the development of Peak Capacity Solar PV Project to be acquired by National Transmission and Dispatch Company (NTDC) (the company tasked with the assignment of implementation of the project)

Objection raised regarding the effect of issuance of notices under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act 1894'), after the expression of urgency was conveyed and materialized in shape of the Notification under S. 17(4) of the Act 1894

Validity

Subsection (1) of S. 17 of the Act, 1894 transpired that the Commissioner was assigned the lead role and upon Commissioner's directions, the Collector was competent to take possession of the land after passing of fifteen days, from the publication of the notice under S. 9(1) of the Act 1894

Notwithstanding the fact that notice under S. 9 of Act, 1894 was issued after Notification under S. 17(4) of the Act 1894, no infringement of the statutory command was evidently committed

Petitioners had the opportunity to file objections after the notices issued under Ss. 9 & 10 of the Act, 1894, but their ambition was to knock-down the purpose of acquisition, which purpose had to fail

Constitutional petition, filed by land-owners, was dismissed, in circumstances.

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 / landowner was aggrieved of notification issued by revenue authorities to acquire land for the purpose of Defence Housing Authority (DHA) on the request of its Legal Advisor

Validity

Both the legislations i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 are not in conflict with each other and both the statutes can exist side by side

Capital Development Authority (CDA) is responsible for planning and development, whereas Land Acquisition Collector focuses on acquiring land for public purposes

Any changes to CDA's Master Plan requires its approval

DHA under S. 3(4) of Defence Housing Authority Islamabad Act, 2013 while designing, planning and executing a scheme in specified area, has to adhere to Master Plan of Islamabad and ensure that all public roads and paths leading to and from adjoining areas and access to graveyard, as far as possible, be maintained and no change or alteration can be made in such road, paths or access except with prior approval of the Government

Land Acquisition Collector was empowered through notification in question to acquire land under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Land can be acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 however, under Defence Housing Authority Islamabad Act, 2013 it is the Executive Board, which can apply to District Collector for the acquisition of land

Legal Advisor was not competent/authorized to do so under the law

According to S. 13 of Defence Housing Authority Islamabad Act, 2013 no such delegation of powers had been made to the Legal Adviser

Where a statue has provided for a particular thing to be done in a specific manner then it is to be done in that manner and the role of Courts is not designed to legislate but interpret statutes according to their ordinary and plain meaning and not to import and / or supply words or provisions, no matter how laudable and desirable it may appear to be

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

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.

Whether the purpose demonstrated by acquiring agency comes within the parameters and compass of public purpose is to be decided by the Government

High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Art.44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974, cannot step in the shoes of Government

Even the question of public purpose cannot be determined by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction because it is always the Collector Land Acquisition who determines under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as to whether a purpose is a public purpose or not

Public purpose broadly speaking means any purpose aimed at promotion of general public

Whether a purpose amounts to public purpose is a matter for government and not for the High Court to decide.

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.

Referee Court has to take into consideration market value of land; factum of delay in concluding acquisition proceedings; payment of compensation; and price escalation during intervening period.

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

Determination of compensation for land compulsorily acquired is the duty not only of the State/executive functionaries (particularly of the Land Acquisition Collector) but once landowners are not compensated by them, the duty for such determination, under the Constitution and the law, is cast upon judicial forums, including Referee Court and superior Courts.

Mere production of handful of sale deeds, contemporaneous to acquisition proceedings, is not enough to disbelieve compensation already determined.

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.

Held, that record revealed that the documentary evidence on the behalf of the respondents in the proceedingsbefore the Referee Court was produced on behalf of the respondents by their (respondents') counsel in his statement

It is mandatory requirement of law that documents relied upon should be produced in the evidence by party in its own statement so that the adverse party may have a fair opportunity to cross-examine the same, as such the documents produced by the respondent counsel lacked intrinsic value and such documents could validly be excluded from consideration

Appeal, filed by the Acquiring Agency, was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellants/authorities installed a well for public welfare in land granted to respondent/plaintiff in accordance with law

Respondent/ plaintiff was aggrieved of non-payment of compensation to him and suit filed by him was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

In case of continuing breach of a contract and case of an ongoing wrong independent of the contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which breach or wrong, as the case may be, continues

Respondent/plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation in the event of land acquired for public purposes

Land was granted to appellants/authorities for installation of a well which was inherently a public purpose

Trial Court failed to appreciate legal and factual aspects of the same and dismissed the suit of respondent/plaintiff

Lower Appellate Court after discussing facts as well as evidence of parties, including additional evidence, through a well-reasoned judgment rightly decreed the suit of respondent/plaintiff who was a lawful grantee in respect of suit land

Lower Appellate Court did not commit any illegality as the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to compensation

Where there were conflicting verdicts, decision made by Lower Appellate Court should be accorded greater deference and esteem unless it was demonstrated from available documentation that such determination lacked substantiation from evidentiary support

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

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.

Such was consideration of acquiring agency keeping in view nature of public purpose, for which they proposed a particular site, process was completed and ultimately award was issued

Neither petitioner nor residents of the area or anyone else approached authorities concerned for redressal of their grievance

Neither petitioners nor added respondents who were supporting petitioners' contention were able to establish violation of law, infringement of their fundamental rights or contravention of statutory provision i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Acquisition Rules, 2020

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners assailed award issued under S.11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and sought the same to be illegal, unlawful and void, and also sought its cancellation for it was in gross violation of law

Validity

Non-issuance of notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and its non-publication in official gazette was violation of statutory provision laid down in S.4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Issuance of award under S. 11 or 17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was without jurisdiction and of the legal effect

High Court set aside order passed by authorities and cancelled award in question

High Court directed land owners who received compensation in lieu of award in question to return the same to concerned authority

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Appellant/land acquiring authority was aggrieved of order regarding return of land in question which was acquired from respondents/ex- land owners

Validity

Power to restore possession of acquired land to the persons from whom it was acquired laid with the Government and that too when the department of government or a local authority for which land was acquired proposed to abandon the public purpose for which it was acquired

Respondents/ex-land owners were claiming restoration of meagre part of acquired land on the ground that it had become surplus

Provision of R. 14 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, could not be stretched in favour of respondents/ex-land owners

Matter relating to return of acquired land could not be left at the whims of ex-land owners

Allowing respondents/ex-land owners to claim part of acquired land having become surplus would open a pandora box and a flood gate for other land owners as well

Intra Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

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.

Petitioners assailed notifications whereby land in question was acquired treating the matter as case of urgency, without compliance of mandatory provisions of law

Validity

Provisions of Ss. 5 & 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and all other provisions up till publication of notice under S. 9 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were to be complied with and carried out to full effect

Notification was to be issued under S. 5 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that land was needed for public purpose or company

Right of hearing under S. 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was conferred on any person interested in any land which was notified under S. 5 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to object to acquisition of land

Such right was fundamental to the process of acquisition and was inviolate even in case of urgency contemplated by S. 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Possession could only be taken after publication of notice mentioned in S. 9(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

No such proceedings took place in the present case and requirements of S. 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had gone abegging

If such was the situation, then S. 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not have come into play as the provision was subject to applicability of S. 17(1) & (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Such power was further subject to another important rider which was contained in proviso to S. 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which related to deposit by department of Government, the local authority or company for which land was being acquired to first deposit estimated cost of acquisition of such land as determined by Collector of the District

Notice mentioned in S. 9(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was to be issued after compliance of Ss. 5 & 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had already taken place

Such provisions were to be reconciled and read in harmony

Intention of such provisions was only be to dispense with normal procedure in case of emergency and to proceed to take possession, immediately

Only thing left then was giving of compensation

Act of Commissioner in the present case of issuing second notification under Ss. 17(4) & 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was null and without lawful authority

High Court struck down notifications under Ss. 4, 17(4) & 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Before exercise of power under S. 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by Commissioner, he has to form opinion on the basis of material placed before him and duly considered by Commissioner at the time when he forms the opinion

Grounds and circumstances forming basis of opinion must have a direct nexus with exercise of power conferred under S. 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and must not be based on irrelevant considerations

Reading of R. 11 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, shows that Commissioner while forming opinion has to return a finding as to whether it would be proper to acquire a certain piece of land so as to minimize loss to agricultural economy

Special emphasis has been laid for preserving agricultural economy and while acquiring land special care has to be taken with regard to preservation of agricultural economy and public health

Such is the underlying theme of Rr. 10 & 11 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, and corresponding obligation is cast upon Commissioner of the Division while forming an opinion.

Words "in cases where in the opinion of the Commissioner the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) are applicable"

Scope

Legislature requires Commissioner to form an opinion

Opinion must be expressed in writing and cannot be presumed to exist in the mind of Commissioner without finding expression in a written order.

Appellant/acquiring authority directly filed Reference before Referee Court which was dismissed, without giving issue-wise findings on all issues

Validity

Where Court can decide only one issue, if finding on such issue is sufficient to decide the suit then there is no need to discuss all other issues framed in the suit

Company or local authority could, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred to by the Collector for determination of the Court

Appellant/ acquiring authorities could by written application to the Collector require the matter to be referred to by the Collector for determination of the Court on such written application and the Collector must refer the matter to the Court within 15 days

High Court directed Trial Court to decide the reference after recording evidence of all parties interested

High Court also directed to record evidence of respondents, and after framing issues, decide all issues as envisaged under the provision of O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C.

High Court directed Referee Court to examine Collector as witness who was author of the award and was an important witness

Appeal 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.

Acquisition for establishing housing societies by Federal Government Employees Housing Authority is a public purpose.

Petitioners were owners of lands and their grievance was that after acquisition of their lands no compensations were paid to them

Validity

Negotiated settlement approved by Executive Board of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA) was binding and parties were committed to perform their respective obligations

Settlement agreement between the parties met the requirements of just compensation in the context of Art. 24 of the Constitution

High Court directed Federal Government to ensure implementation of settlement agreement

Power of compulsory acquisition or eminent domain was abused by Capital Development Authority (CDA) by denying to affected property owners their acknowledged vested rights

Such was a Constitutional and statutory duty of CDA and Federal Government to 'compensate' all affected citizens whose rights stood admitted and acknowledged

Every affected citizen who was subjected to power of compulsory land acquisition and whose right to either allotment of plot or payment in monetary terms was acknowledged by CDA had a Constitutional right to be 'compensated' without further delay based on the principle of equivalence, otherwise it would be confiscatory and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 9, 23 & 24 of the Constitution

Such was a statutory and Constitutional duty of Federal Government to formulate a policy regarding enforcement of acknowledged vested rights of affected citizens who were subjected to the power of eminent domain but were not compensated despite lapse of inordinate delay

High Court directed Federal Government to give such directions to CDA as were necessary to enforce acknowledged vested rights

Market values determined through awards announced before year 2010 had lost their efficacy and payment made on the basis thereof was likely to have confiscatory effect even if it was in addition to 8% per annum

No property could be legitimately condemned by exercising the power of eminent domain if the owner was not 'compensated'

Such was mandatory for authorities to reassess market values in a fair and transparent manner to avoid likelihood of confiscatory effect, followed by prompt payment directly to the affected owner of the property

High Court directed Federal Government to formulate uniform policy regarding acquisition of land, determination of market value or giving rehabilitation benefit in case of exercise of power of eminent domain by CDA or FGEHA, as the case could be

High Court further directed Federal Government that while formulating policy it would ensure that the policy was in consonance with the rights of citizens likely to be affected and duties of public functionaries towards them

High Court also directed that Federal Government through its policy directions would ensure that procedures adopted while exercising the power of eminent domain was clear, predictable, transparent and fair so that opportunities for corruption were not created

Federal Government could also consider directing CDA and FGEHA, as the case could be, to issue awards for acquisition of land and built up properties so as to avoid insurmountable complications

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Entire land comprising "Specified Areas" has been declared as being liable to acquisition under S. 22 of Capital Development Authority Act, 1960 and it is a declaration made by the Legislature.

Any law providing acquisition of any class of property for purpose of education, medical aid, housing, public facilities and services, such as roads, is exempted and Art. 24 of the Constitution cannot affect validity of such action

State has provided mechanism to protect rights of individuals/citizens in the Constitution and at the same time, empowers State authorities to exercise their right for public welfare.

Respondents/applicants received compensation under protest contending that they were entitled to receive the compensation to the tune of enhanced value along with 8% compound interest

Trial Court decreed reference of respondents / applicant

Validity

Admittedly, after issuing notice under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 2010, appellants had not taken any steps regarding preparation of the award till 2016

In the meantime appellants had enhanced the said compensation rates

Appellants were legally bound to prepare the award according to the market/ potential value of the acquired land during the preparation of award

Admittedly, award was prepared in 2016

Compensation rates were revised in 2015

Respondents were entitled to get compensation according to revised rate

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.