Federal Govt. of Pakistan thr. M/o.Defence Rawalpindi and another vs
This matter concerns a series of review petitions filed by the Federal Government against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the valuation of acquired land. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in awarding compensation based on a uniform valuation for the entire project area, rather than relying on traditional agricultural or revenue classifications used by the Collector and the Referee Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that revenue classifications are often irrelevant for determining fair compensation in large-scale acquisitions. The Court affirmed that relying on such classifications for small parcels of land disadvantages landowners by ignoring the potential value of the land as a whole. The Court emphasized that compensation must reflect the 'willing buyer, willing seller' formula and the land's potential for development, including amenities and industrialization. A key principle laid down is that the determination of potential land value should not be left to the arbitrary discretion of courts or collectors; rather, there is a critical need for legislative or regulatory bodies to devise a standardized, transparent methodology for calculating market and potential value to prevent arbitrary undervaluation and protracted litigation.
- Is the revenue classification of land the sole determinant for calculating compensation in land acquisition cases?
- Can a court award uniform compensation for land acquired for a single project despite varying revenue classifications?
- Does the lack of legislative guidelines for determining potential land value justify arbitrary valuation by the Collector?
- Land Acquisition Act 1894
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ayesha A. Malik, Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi Title:Federal Govt. of Pakistan thr. M/o.Defence Rawalpindi and another vs Mst.Zakia Begum and others Case No.: C.R.P.446/2022 C.A.2154/2019, C.R.P.449/2022 C.A.2157/2019, C.R.P.452/2022 C.A.2160/2019, C.R.P.455/2022 C.A.2163/2019, C.R.P.458/ 2022 C.A.2166/2019, C.R.P.461/2022 C.A.2169/2019, C.R.P.464/2022 C.R.P.466/ 2022, C.R.P.468/2022 C.A.2176/2019, C.A.2178/2019, C.R.P.473/2022 C.A.2181/2019, C.R.P.476/2022 C.A.2184/2019, C.R.P.479/2022 C.A.2187/2019, C.R.P.482/2022 C.A.2190/2019, C.R.P.48512022 C.A.2193/2019, C.R.P.488/2022 C.A.2196/2019, C.R.P.491/2022 C.A.2199/2019, C.R.P.494/2022 C.A.2202/2019, C.R.P.497/2022 C.A.2205/2019, C.R.P.500/2022 C.A.2208/2019, C.R.P.503/2022 C.A.2211/2019, C.R.P.506/2022 C.A.2214/2019, C.R.P.509/2022 C.A.2217/2019, C.R.P.512/2022 C.A.222012019, C.R.P.515/2022 C.A.2223/2019, IN C.A.2150/2019, C.R.P.447/2022 IN C.R.P.448/2022 IN C.A.2155/2019, IN C.A.2156/2019, C.R.P.450/2022 IN C.R.P.451/2022 IN C.A.2158/2019, IN C.A.2159/2019, C.R.P.453/2022 IN C.R.P.454/ 2022 IN C.A.2161/2019, IN C.A.2162/2019, C.R.P.456/2022 IN C.R.P.457/2022 IN C.A.2164/2019, IN C.A.2165/2019, C.R.P.459/2022 C.R.P.460/2022 IN C.A.2167/2019, IN C.A.2168/2019, C.R.P.462 /2022 IN C.R.P.463/2022 IN C.A.2170/2019, in C.A.2171/2019, C.R.P.465/2022, C.R.P.467/2022 IN C.A.2174/2019, IN C.A.2175/2019, C.R.P.469/2022 IN C.R.P.470/2022, C.R.P.471/2022 IN C.R.P.472/2022 IN C.A.2179/2019, IN C.A.2180/2019, C.R.P.474/2022 IN C.R.P.475/2022 IN C.A.2182/2019, IN C.A.2183/2019, C.R.P.477/2022 IN C.R.P.478/2022 IN C.A.2185/2019, IN C.A.2186/2019, C.R.P.480/2022 IN C.R.P.481/2022 IN C.A.2188/2019, IN C.A.2189/2019, C.R.P.483/2022 IN C.R.P.484/2022 IN C.A.2191/2019, IN C.A.2192/2019, C.R.P.486/2022 IN C.R.P.487/2022 IN C.A.2194/2019, IN C.A.2195/2019, C.R.P.489/2022 IN C.R.P.490/2022 IN C.A.2197/2019, IN C.A.2198/2019, C.R.P.492/2022 IN C.R.P.493/2022 IN C.A.2200/2019 IN C.A.2201/2019, C.R.P.495/2022 IN C.R.P.496/2022 IN C.A.2203/2019, IN C.A.2204/2019, C.R.P.498/2022 IN C.R.P.499/ 2022 IN C.A.2206/ 2019, IN C.A.2207/ 2019, C.R.P.501/2022 IN C.R.P.502/2022 IN C.A.2209/2019, IN C.A.2210/2019, C.R.P.504/ 2022 IN C.R.P.505/2022 IN C .2212/2019, IN C.A.2213/2019, C.R.P.507/2022 IN C.R.P.508/2022 IN C.A.2215/2019, IN C.A.2216 /2019, C.R.P.510 / 2022 IN C.R.P.511/2022 IN C.A.2218/2019, IN C.A.2219/2019, C.R.P.513/2022 IN C.R.P.514/2022 IN C.A.2221/2019, IN C.A.2222/2019, C.R.P.516/2022 IN C.R.P.517/2022 IN C.A.2224/2019 C.R,P.446/2022 etc C.R.P.518/ 2022 C.A.2226 / 2019, C.R.P.521/2022 C.A.2229/2019, C.R.P.524/ 2022 C.A.2232 /2019, C.R.P.527 / 2022 C.A.2235/ 2019, C.R.P.530 / 2022 C.A.2238 / 2019, C.A.2240/ 2019, C.R.P.535/ 2022 C.A.2243/ 2019, C.R.P.
538/2022 C.A.2246/2019, C.R.P.541 /2022 C.A.2249/2019, C.R.P.544/2022 C.A.2252 / 2019, C.R.P.547/ 2022 C.A.2255/ 2019, C.R.P.550/ 2022 C.A.2258/ 2019, C.R.P.553/ 2022 C.A.2261/ 2019, IN C.A.2225/ 2019, C.R.P.520 / 2022 IN C.A.2228/2019, C.R.P.523/ 2022 IN C.A.2231/ 2019, C.R.P.526/ 2022 IN C.A.2234/ 2019, C.R.P.529 / 2022 IN C.A.2237/ 2019, C.R.P.532 / 2022, C.R.P.534/ 2022 IN C.A.2242/ 2019, C.R.P.537/2022 IN C.A.2245 /2019, C.R.P. 540/ 2022 IN C.A.2248/2019, C.R.P.543/ 2022 IN C.A.2 1/ 2019, C.R.P.546/ 2022 IN C.A.2254/ 2019, C.R.P.549/ 2022 IN C.A.2257/ 2019, C.R.P.552 /2022 IN C.A.2260 / 2019, C.R.P.555 /2022 C.R.P.519 /2022 IN IN C.A.2227/ 2019, C.R.P.522 / 2022 IN IN C.A.2230 /2019, C.R.P.525/2022 IN IN C.A.2233 /2019, C.R.P.528/2022 IN IN C.A.2236 /2019, C.R.P.531 /2022 IN C.R.P.533/2022 IN IN C.A.2241/ 2019, C.R.P.536 / 2022 IN IN C.A.2244 /2019, C.R.P.539 / 2022 IN IN C.A.2247 /2019, C.R.P.542 /2022 IN IN C.A.2250/2019, C.R.P.545/ 2022 IN IN C.A.2253/ 2019, C.R.P.548/2022 IN IN C.A.2256 / 2019, C.R.P.551/ 2022 IN IN C.A.2259 /2019, C.R.P.554 / 2022 IN IN C.A.2262 /2019, C.R.P.556 /2022 IN C.A.2263 /2019 Date of Judgment:2023-07-18 Reported As: 2023 SCP 303 Result: Petition Dismissed
Judgment
ORDER
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ: We have heard the learned Addl. Attorney General at length. His principal grievance is that the increase in value of acquired land to the amount that the High Court has ordered is not backed by evidence. Paragraph-05 of the judgment of the High Court records the evidentiary values of the land acquired according to its agricultural/revenue classification.
Considering that the land is acquired for a single project, this Court has 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 possesses justification. Reference is made to paragraph-17 of our judgment under review reported as "Federal Government of Pakistan versus Mst. Zakia Begum" (PLD 2023 SC 277).
2. An important aspect of our judgment under review is that the calculation of potential value of acquired land by a Court of law starting from the referee Court up to this Court cannot be left to their discretionary assessm ent. 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. To emphasize the point, we reproduce the said observation made in paragraph-18 of our impugned judgment: "18. Ideally, there should be guidelines to calculate this value, however, since the efforts of the government have been to undervalue the land, no real effort has gone into devising a scheme to calculate potential value over the years. This is why there is so much litigation on just this issue.
Under the circumstances, there is a dire need to legislate on the issue and to devise a methodology to calculate potential value and market value so that it is neither arbitrary nor left to the whims of the Collector. This should be a priority for the government as acquisition cannot be at the expense of the financial loss of a landowner. Where there is acquisition for public purpose, the Act mandates that a fair value is prescribed based on the market value and the potential value of the land and the cases of this Court give sufficient guidance on calculating market value and potential value, hence, there appears to be no justification to continue with archaic concepts whilst valuing the land. In these cases, market value and potential value has been assessed at Rs.30,000/ - per kanal based on the willing buyer, willing seller formula as well as on the available amenities such as transport, electricity, urban. Development and industrialization, which shows there is potential for the area to be fully developed. This is based on the evidence and calculation of future prospects. Unfortunately, a great amount of time was consumed for the land owners to get the worth of their land all of which could have been avoided, had the value been properly assessed."
3. In the light of foregoing, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment under review.
Dismissed.