Computing Sale Price of Acquired Land

PLJ 2008 SC 477

[Appellate Jurisdiction]

Present: Abdul Hameed Dogar, HCJ, Ijaz-ul-Hassan & Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ.

Malik HADI HUSSAIN and others--Appellants

versus

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR and another--Respondents

Civil Appeal No. 2060 of 2006, decided on 13.3.2008.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 11.9.2006 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in RFA No. 420/2000).

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894)--

----Ss. 4, 18 & 54--Acquisition of land--Computing sale price of the acquired land--National Highway Authority initiated proceedings for acquisition of land for constructing an additional carriage way--Notification u/S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued--Compulsory acquisition charges were awarded--Assailed--Reference made to Referee Court to determine the compensation to be awarded to respondents--Referee Court enhanced the amount of award--Quantum of damages was enhanced--Judgment of Referee Court was set aside by High Court--Validity--High Court has made basis of a single sale in the revenue record whereas Referee Court has taken into consideration the average sale price pertaining to sale of commercial land--Held: High Court has totally ignored the question of damages although acquisition department itself admitted the although acquisition department itself admitted the damages suffered by appellants but awarded meager damages as compared to actual loss assessed and granted by Referee Court--Appeal was allowed.

      [P. 479] A

Sardar Abdul Majeed Dogar, ASC and Mr. Khan Muhammad Vehniwal, ASC for Appellants.

Mr. Jehanzaib Khan Bharwana, ASC for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13.3.2008.

Judgment

Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is directed against the judgment dated 11.9.2006 passed by learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby judgment and decree dated 31-5-2000 of learned Senior Judge/Referee Court, Kasur, has been set aside, maintaining award of Land Acquisition Collector and reducing compensation of the land acquired.

2.  Necessary facts for disposal of instant appeal are, that National Highway Authority initiated proceedings for acquisition of land for constructing an additional carriage way on a portion of the Multan Road. A notification under Section 4 of the Act ibid was issued on 12.1.1993. The total land acquired for said project was 18 kanals and 13 marlas in village Lakhankey, Teshil Pattoki, District Kasur. Respondents were owners of 4 kanals and 9 marlas out of the notified area. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered an award dated 18.8.1996 determining the price of the land as Rs.427.58 per marla. Compulsory acquisition charges were awarded at the rate of 15% together with 8% compound interest. Additional compensation amounting to Rs. 19,67,479/- by way of damages and Rs.2,02,996/- for loss of goodwill in respect of a petrol pump and service station constructed on the acquired land was also awarded. Being dissatisfied with the award, respondents initiated proceedings under Section 18 of the Act ibid resulting in a reference made to the Senior Civil Judge/Referee Court, Kasur, to determine the compensation to be awarded to the respondents. The referee Court enhanced the amount of award from Rs.427.58 to Rs.35,000/- per marlas. The quantum of damages was enhanced to Rs.38,26,639/- less the amount of Rs. 2,02,9960. Compulsory acquisition charges and compounded interest were maintained.

3.  Feeling aggrieved, respondents filed Regular First Appeal before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby judgment of the referee Court was set aside by fixing compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,260.86 per marla.

4.  M/s. Sardar Abdul Majeed Dogar, and Khan Muhammad Vehniwal, Advocates, appearing on behalf of appellants, attempted to argue that the impugned judgment is against the weight of evidence on record and amount of compensation has been reduced to Rs: 3,260.86 per marla without any justifiable reason and criteria and principle governing determination of compensation to be paid for the acquired land has not been kept in consideration and learned High Court has ignored the question of damages.

5.  Mr. Jehanzaib Khan Bharwana, Advocate for respondents opposed the above contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that learned High Court has given valid reasons for reducing the rate of compensation which are based on correct appreciation of evidence and hardly require interference by this Court.

6.  It needs no reiteration that while determining the amount of compensation, Court is to consider evidence brought on the record by the parties and further Land Acquisition Collector while determining compensation of acquired land has also to consider the potential and future prospective of land in addition to one year average. While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the past sale should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentiality may also be determined by examining other facts.

7.  An assessment of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put and the impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on having regard to all these factors.

8.  After hearing learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on file, we find that in computing the sale price of the acquired land, learned High Court has made basis of a single sale in the concerned revenue record whereas learned Referee Court has taken into consideration the average sale price of previous year pertaining to sale of commercial land. The learned High Court has totally ignored the question of damages altogether although acquisition department itself admitted the damages suffered by the appellants-affectees but awarded meager damages as compared to actual loss assessed and granted by learned Referee Court. The impugned judgment of learned Division Bench of the High Court as rightly contended is the result of non-reading and mis-reading of evidence and all other relevant record and as such cannot be allowed to remain intact.

9.  Pursuant to above, this appeal is allowed, impugned judgment dated 11-9-2006 of learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, is set aside and judgment and decree dated 31-5-2000 of learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Court, Kasur, is restored. We make no order as to costs.

(R.A.)      Appeal allowed.