2021 Y L R 283
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/COLLECTOR, QUETTA and another ---
Appellants
Versus
Begum JAMILA DAUD and 15 others ---Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 75 of 2012, decided on 3rd January, 2020.
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) --
----Ss. 18 & 23 ---Reference to court ---Enhancement of compensation--- Market value ---
Determination of ---Procedure---Acquired land was situated at main road having best
location ---Collect or Land Acquisition had failed to determine fair compensation and award
was based on the average price for a period of one year ---Validity ---Criteria of one year
average could not be made basis for assessment of compensation amount of acquired land---
Land had been acquired for the interest of general public at public expense ---Landlord was to
be compensated in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee ---
Compensation assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition was on the lower side and was not
based on actual market rate--- Collector Land Acquisition while passing award had not
considered the location of the land which had been acquired and had awarded meager amount of compensation ---Compensation awarded by the Referee Court was neith er exaggerated nor
exorbitant ---Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below was in accordance
with law ---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Mst. Iqbal Begum and others PLD 2010 SC
719 rel.
Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Assistant Advocate General for Appellants.
Rafiullah Barrech for Respondents Nos. 1 to 15.
Date of hearing: 17th December, 2019.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the judgment
and decree dated 17.04.2012 (hereinafter "the impugned Judgment") passed by learned Additional District Judge -III, Quetta, (hereinafter "the trial Court") in Land Acquisition
Reference No.04 of 2011 and the appellants/ respondents filed this Regular First Appeal
("RFA").
2. Brief ly narrated the facts of the case are that the Government of Balochistan required
a land owned by the private land owners for its extension and improvements of the old
Mastung Road Arbab Karam Khan Road to link Road Hazar Ganji situated in various Khasra of Mahal and Mouza of Halqa Urban -III Tehsil and District Quetta, whereas the property of
the respondents subjected to the said extension of road and in this respect a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereafter "the Act") was issued.
Subsequently, notice under section 9 of the Act (ibid) was issued and the land owners were directed to submit their objections to the acquisition of their lands to which the respondents/appellants duly replied.
3. After completion of the proceedin gs, the Land Acquisition Collector passed his
Award dated 16.10.2002 and awarded the compensation to the private respondents/ land owners along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges under the provisions of the Act.
4. The private respondents/land owners were aggrieved from the award of the Land
Acquisition Collector and so they filed a Reference under section 18 of the Act in which the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was challenged. The Reference was entrusted to the lear ned Additional District Judge -III, Quetta, who summoned
the appellants, the appellants filed detailed written statements and out of the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed: -
"1. Whether respondent has acquired petitioner's land bearing Khasra No.525/3 to 28 min 1 and 2 Ward No.9 etc Halqa Urban- III, Tehsil and District Quetta, after having
assessed its valuation at lower rate contrary to prevailing market value construction and its situation?
2. Whether petitioners express object ion on Notification No.685- 87/44(3) - RB / 2001,
dated 22.04.2002. after its issuance?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for relief claimed for?
4. Relief?
5. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and the
learned trial Cou rt after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the document and oral evidence available on record, answered the Reference in positive and awarded compensation for the acquired land in the following manner: -
"i. Rate of c ommercial land/plot situates at Raisani Road/Arbab Karam Khan Road, is
fixed as Rs. 1500/ - per sqft.
ii. Rate of cost of construction is fixed as Rs. 500/ - per sqft.
iii. Rate of residential land situated at Raisani Road/Arbab Karam Khan main Road is fixed as Rs. 1000/ - per sqft.
iv. In addition 15% in consideration of compulsory acquisition as required under section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act.
v. With additional compensation of 15% per annum from the date of Notification dated
22nd April, 2002 of payme nt compensation as required under section 25 shall be paid
to the petitioner/ objector".
6. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Collector Quetta and Secretary, Government of
Balochistan, Communication and Works Department, Civil Secretariat, Quetta, being aggrieved has filed this RFA.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record
available on record with their able assistance.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that the acquired land which shows it location houses of
the respondents, other houses, shops, main injunction of Arbab Karam Khan Road, Raisani
Road, Joint Road, University of Balochistan, Sariab Road are situated which shows the best
location of the acquired track of land. The Land Acquisition Collector, Quetta, i nstead of
applying its independent mind as to the determination of the fair compensation of the
acquired land based his award on the average price furnished to him by Tehsil Official Quetta for a period of one year.
9. Now it is settled law that the presen t trend of extra ordinary hike of landed property,
the criteria of one year average cannot be made basis for assessment of compensation amount
of acquired land. In case of acquisition of land, the land is acquired in the interest of general
public at publi c expense on the basis of sacrifice of an individual, which requires to
adequately compensating the individual in extra ordinary manner and the compensation should be fixed in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee. In this regard wisdom can be drawn from case titled Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Mst.
Iqbal Begum and others reported as PLD 2010 Supreme Court 719, wherein it has been held as under: -
"the principles laid down for determination of compensation reflect anxiety of law -
giver to compensate those deprived of property adequately enough so as to be given gold for gold and not copper for gold" .........One year's average of sales taking place before publication of notification under section 4 of similar land is merely one of the
modes of ascertaining market value and is not an absolute yardstick for assessment of compensation. Moreover, status of acquired land, its potentialities and its likelihood of development and improvement would be necessary Actors for det ermining rate of
compensation''.
10. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in its award is not
found according to legal, equitable criteria, which has been laid down under the law and the wisdom laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, for proper assessment of compensati on, the
evidence is produced by the respondents/ land owners particularly the property dealers who stated in their statements that the value of the said property from Rs.1200/ - per sqft to 1500/ -
per sqft. Even otherwise, the contention of the respondents/ land owners was also supported
as per letter dated 29.04.2006 of the appellant No.1 sent to Member Board of Revenue (Ex.RW/3) duly supported by the report of Tehsildar dated 26.04.2009 (Ex.RW/4) shows the material rate of the commercial area as Rs.1500/ -. So through such evidence it could be
concluded safely that compensation assessed by appellant No.1 was on the lower side and
was not based at the actual market rate.
11. Admittedly, the acquired property is situated near the road which is not only
importan t for commercial point of view but for the purpose of residential as well and the land
situated near the road is always considered more valuable than the land situated at some distance from the road. The mutation entries and location nearby properties of t he property in
question has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector at the time of announcement of the impugned award. The Land Acquisition Collector despite being aware of the situation of the acquired land has awarded very meager amount of compensation and, as such, the amount enhanced by the learned trial Court in no case is found either exaggerated or exorbitant keeping in view the high trend of prices of landed property in the area and is maintained.
The judgment and decree of the learne d trial Court is strictly in accordance with the
law and in consonance with the evidence available on record which call for no interference.
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, there is no merit in the instant
appeal, which is hereby d ismissed with no order as to cost.
ZC/81/Bal. Appeal 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.