2017 M L D 1276
[Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Zaheer -ud-Din Kakar, JJ
ABDUL AHAD and 19 others ---Appellants
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary C & W and others ---
Respondents
Regular First Appeals Nos.170 to 189 of 2014, decided on 22nd December, 2016.
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) ---
----Ss. 18, 23 & 4--- Land acquisition---Reference to court ---Compensation, determination of ---
Onus to prove ---Market value ---Reference filed by the landowners was dismissed by the Trial
Court---Validity ---Offer of compensation by Collector Land Acquisition would prevail unless
the claimant before the Reference Court could prove by cogent evidence that said offer was
inadequate ---Burden of proof would be upon the landowner claiming more compensation than
the amount of award--- If landowner was not satisfied with the award and had moved for
reference then he had to prove that amount of compensation in the award was inadequate ---
Government as well as any other department for whose benefit land w as being acquired had right
to produce the evidence to prove the fair compensation that was payable to the landowner ---
Court while determining compensation was to take into consideration the market value of the
land on the date of publication of notificati on under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---
Compensation must be determined by reference to the price which willing vendor might
reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser ---Collector must keep in mind the status of
property with reference to pl ace where it was situated, its future prospects towards the
development of area, damages which vendor would sustain if portion of his land was acquired
and factors that on acquiring such portion of land the utility of his remaining property would
impair or improve ---Landowners, in the present case, had failed to produce any documentary
evidence in support of their claim with regard to market rate prevailing in the locality during
acquisition proceedings or before the Trial Court ---Verbal assertions carried no weight in the eye
of law ---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
PLD 1960 Lah. 469 and PLD 1976 Pesh. 50 rel.
Rehmatullah Barech for Appellants.
Abdul Latif Kakar, Addl: A.G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing; 14th December, 2016.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. ---Through this common judgment, we intend to dispose
of (20) Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 170 to 189 of 2014, as they involved legal and factual
controversies, arising out of the same award dated 10.1.2012 and the judgments and decre es
dated 20.10.2014, passed by the Additional District Judge -IV/Referee Judge, Quetta in respect of
fixation of compensation of the property acquired through order dated 10.1.2012, whereby the
references of the appellants were dismissed.
2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that vide Notification dated 10.1.2012, the Deputy
Commissioner/Collector, Quetta (Respondent No.3), on observing all the legal formalities,
pronounced the Award to pay compensation to the appellants/landowners at the rate of Rs.126/50
per Sq:Ft: in respect of the lands situated in Mahal and Mouza Khushkaba Saddat, Tappa
Shadnizai -II, Tehsil -City District Quetta for the purpose of construction/extension of (Dual
carriage way) blacktop road old Mastung Road from CGS Link Road to Mian Ghundi Quetta.
Most of the affectees/land owners of this award accepted the terms of the award and received
their respective compensation without any objection. However, the appellants, in these 20
appeals, who owned different separate pieces of the acquired la nd, being dis -satisfied with the
quantum of compensation at Rs.126/50 per Sq:Ft: filed their respective objections/references
before the Collector on 9.2.2012 claiming therein compensation at the rate of Rs.400/ - per Sq:Ft.
together with the other benefits permissible under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 "the Act". It is
to be noted that the lands of the appellants falls within the category "C" of the award. The
reference applications filed by the appellants were sent to the Court of District Judge, Quetta, on
28.4.2014 for further proceedings in terms of section 18 of the Act, who entrusted the same for
adjudication to the Additional District Judge -IV/Referee Judge, Quetta, who registered the same
and summoned the respondents, who appeared and contested the reference petitions by filing
their written reply.
3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the Referee Judge framed the following
issues: --
ISSUES
1. Whether the value of the land acquired by the respondent No.1 is less the
prevailing market val ue of land in the locality area i.e. Rs.400/ - per Sq:Ft:'?
2. Whether the award dated 10.1.2012 made by the respondent No.3 is contrary to
the facts and law?
3. Relief?
5. Thereafter, pro and contra evidence of the parties were recorded and the learned Ref eree
Judge on evaluating the evidence brought on record and considering the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties vide judgments and decrees dated 29.10.2014 dismissed the references,
hence these appeals.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the compensation determined by the
Collector and upheld by the Referee Judge is not fair as the potential value of the land was not
taken into consideration. He contended that the acquired land being located near Quetta City area
is more valuable than the award amount; that actual facts and aspects have been completely
ignored by respondent No.3 and the Referee Judge and prevailing market -value of the property
in question has been assessed in flimsy manner, thus, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned
AAG vehemently argued that under the Act, it is always the duty of the claimant -appellant to
prove that the compensation given in the Award was insufficient. He fu rther emphasized that
claimant -appellants have failed to prove that less compensation was awarded to them by the
Collector.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record
available. Under the Act, the offer of Collector prevails unless the claimant -appellant before the
District Judge, can prove by leading cogent evidence that the offer was inadequate. The burden
of proof under Section 23 of the Act is upon the owners claiming more compensation than the
amount of Collector s' award. If the owner -claimants are not satisfied with the award and move
for a reference of the case to the concerned Civil Court, that means that they have taken burden
of proof on their own shoulders to prove that amount of compensation recorded in the award was
inadequate. This view finds support from PLD 1960 Lah. 469 wherein a similar proposition was
resolved in the following words: --
"When a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act comes to court and the
owner claims more compensation than that allowed by the Collector he has to establish
that the award given by the Collector does not fix the market -value correctly. The best
method of fixing the market -value is to find what a willing purchaser could pay to a
willing seller."
The same p roposition was confirmed by the learned Peshawar High Court in a case
reported in PLD 1976 Peshawar 50.
9. The above referred case laws bring us to the conclusion that the burden of proof is always
upon the owner of the land claiming the compensation in hi gher amount than the determined by
the Collector in his award. However, Government as well as any other department or a local
authority for whose benefit the land is being acquired, as a right along with the claimant to
produce the evidence to prove the fa ir compensation that is payable to the claimants.
10. In determining the amount of compensation, in case of compulsory acquisition under the
Act, the Court is to take into consideration the market -value of the land on the date of publication
of the Notific ation under Section 4 of the Act. In this regard it has been repeatedly laid down that
the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which availing vendor may
reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. Values of the land vary from time to time.
Certain events considerably change the value of the land. In the present cases, in the light of
above discussion, the dispute relates between the parties about the market -value of the land in
dispute on 06.5.2011 when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. In addition to
this, it is also obligatory upon the Collector to keep in mind the status of the property with
reference to the place where it is situated, its future prospects towards the development of the
area, the damag e which vendor will sustain if portion of his land is required and the factors that
on acquiring such portion of land the utility of his remaining property will impair or improve.
11. In the present case, the appellants verbally claimed the rate of the lan d so acquired as
Rs.400/ - per Sq:Ft: but they did not produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim
regarding market -rate prevailing in the locality during the acquisition proceedings nor produced
any documentary evidence in support of their c laim before the trial Court. As verbal assertions
carry no weight in the eyes of law, therefore, their claims were not considered at the time of
adjudication on the rate and announcement of the Award as well as the Referee Judge at the time
of trial. The A Ws produced by the appellants in favour of their claims, during cross -examination
showed ignorance about the acquisition proceedings and only stated that they know the price of
the acquired lands as Rs.400/ - per Sq:Ft:.
12. On the other hand the respondent No.3 produced report bearing No.454, dated 11.4.2011
from Tehsildar City Quetta along with statement showing details of land transaction effected in
the said Mahal and Mouza for last three years i.e. 2008, 2009 and 2010 (Annexure "L" of the
paper book).
13. As a result of above discussion, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to cost.
ZC/15/Bal Appeals dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.