AZIZ AHMAD Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD
MUNIR AHMAD SHEIKH, J.‑ This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 3‑2‑1985, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad on reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that through Notification dated 14‑5‑1976 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, land measuring 117 Kanals 11 Marlas in Chak No.120/J.B., Faisalabad, was acquired for Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited for construction of office building and allied installations. This land included land measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas with super structure owned by the present appellant and the present dispute relates to this land. The Acquisition Collector announced his award on 28‑9‑1978 in which he assessed the compensation of the said land of the appellant at the rate of Rs.64,339‑per Acre plus 15%.compulsory acquisition charges and the appellant was also awarded compound interest at the rate of 8$ for 344 days. He assessed the compensation for the superstructure raised on the land by the appellant at Rs.60,000 and announced the award. The appellant received the compensation so determined under protest. Being dissatisfied with the award the appellant filed a reference complaining that the compensation granted to him was inadequate in which he asserted that the Land Acquisition Collector did not apply his mind nor did he follow the guidelines laid down under the law for determination of compensation of the land acquired. It was also stated that the Collector neither conducted any inquiry nor properly appreciated the evidence produced. The appellant claimed that the market value of the land at the relevant time was less than Rs.5,000 and no compensation was granted on account of change in place of business due to removal of his industrial concern. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000 per Marla and an amount of Rs.1,26,600 for super structure. This reference was sent to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad for disposal. The Collector, filed written reply in which he justified the compensation awarded to the appellant. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines, also filed written reply and controverted the allegations made in the reference. It was specifically pleaded by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines that the appellant was wrong in assessing the value of the subject‑matter at the rate of Rs.10,000 per Marla and that the Collector correctly valued the land which is according to the average price of the land in vicinity and the sale mutations of the other lands in the neighbourly area. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:‑
(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is not adequate, if so, what compensation would be adequate? O.P.A.
(2) Relief .
3. In support of his case, the appellant examined Ali Muhammad A.W.1, Haji Muhamad Shafi A.W.2, Abdul Hanan A.W.3, Abdul Hameed A.W.4, Abdul Ghafoor A.W.5, Muhamad Siddique A.W.7 and examined himself as A.W.8 (and 6). He also produced documentary evidence Exh. A‑1 to Exh. A‑4. On the other hand, the, respondent produced Ali Muhammad Patwari R.W.1, Abdul Hameed Ravi, Supervisor Sui Northern Gas Pipelines as R.W.2 and produced documents from EXh.R.1 to Exh.R.5.
4. After appraising the evidence of both the parties as noted above, the learned trial Court answered issue No.l in the negative by holding that the Collector correctly determined the quantum of compensation. As a consequence of finding on issue No. l the reference was dismissed by impugned judgment dated 3‑2‑1985.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is apparent from the award of the Collector that he rested his finding in fixing the market value of the land at Rs.64,339 per Acre on the directive of Board of Revenue Punjab contained in memo. No.576‑77‑778‑SI J dated 21‑3‑1978 and did not apply his independent mind and decide the question after holding enquiry. He also maintained that the market value of the land at the relevant time was not less than Rs.10,000 per Marla and the compensation should have been assessed accordingly. He also urged that the compensation awarded for the loss of super structure raised by the appellant was also inadequate and that no compensation was awarded on account of loss occasioned due to change of place of business because of acquisition of land and removal of the super structure raised by the appellant over the land to run his business. Learned counsel for the appellant laid a great deal of stress upon the argument that in order to determine the market value of the land, the future potentials of land to be used by industry was to be kept in view and tried to seek support from the observations made by the Collector 'that the location of site and the business prospects over there fabulous compensation would have richly merited', for his argument that the market value of the land was not correctly determined.
6. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have gone through the entire evidence produced by the parties with the assistance of the learned counsel. The appellant when he appeared in support of his case admitted that the Aziz Chemical Concern, was not in operation at the time of acquisition and that the building plan of the super structure the details of which were given in the award Exh. A‑2 was not sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. He claimed that the market value of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs.7,000 per Marla and an amount of Rs.27,000, 28,000 was spent for construction of super structure. He however, did not state that the Land Acquisition Collector did not hold inquiry and refused to record and appreciate evidence produced by him. Ali Muhammad AW.1 stated that he purchased three Marlas three sarssaies land for Rs.9,000 in Chak No.120/J.B which was stated to be adjacent to Sargodha Road. He produced copy of sale‑deed Exh.A‑3. Muhammad Shafi A.W.2, deposed that he purchased three Marlas of land for a consideration of Rs.8,000 in Chak No.120/J.B which was also at Sargodha Road and was comparatively better than other lands of the village. Sale‑deed dated 22‑5‑1979 was produced as Exh.A‑4 a perusal of which revealed that as a matter of fact this land was purchased by wife of Haji Muhammad Shafi. Notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was published in hay, 1976, therefore, this sale does not advance the case of the appellant. Abdul Hanan A.W.3, was Chowkidar of the appellant who deposed about the details of super‑structure which are in accordance with the details given in award Exh.A‑2 therefore, his statement does not also advance the case of the appellant in this respect. Abdul Hameed A .4V .4 is a person who is himself aggrieved of the award who admittedly had himself filed an objection petition. He however, admitted that the land of the appellant was situated at the distance of 100 yards from Sargodha Road but stated that such land was being sold at the rate of Rs.10,000 per Marla on account of residential surroundings. He did not deny the suggestion put to him that land of the appellant was situated at a distance of four squares from residential area of Chak No.120/J.B. Abdul Ghafoor A.W.5 who was alleged to be the owner of the brick kiln was examined to prove the purchase of bricks by the appellant for raising the construction of his chemical industry. This witness admittedly did not issue the receipt and according to him he supplied bricks to the appellant 2/3 years prior to the date of his statement which was recorded on 22‑11‑1979. The notification for acquisition of land as noted above was issued on 14‑5‑1976 and if the 2/3 years are calculated from 22‑11‑1979 it can safely be concluded that the super‑structure was raised after the publication of the said notification. This witness further stated that the land of the appellant was situated at a distance of 2 Acres from Sargodha Road. Muhammad Siddique AW‑7 claimed to have prepared bill Exh. A‑1 at the time of supplying the bricks but this document has not been signed by him which also does not disclose the date of its issue. It is clearly proved from the evidence of the appellant himself that his land was situated at a distance of at‑least two Acres from the Sargodha Road therefore he cannot claim that the market value of the same should be determined on the basis of land purchased by Ali Muhammad A . W‑1 through sale‑deed Exh. A‑3 which land admittedly had better location being situated adjacent to Sargodha Road. The appellant did not produce any evidence regarding sales of similarly situated lands in the vicinity. The appellant himself when appeared as A.W.8 had admitted that his land had an approach through 'Kachha Rasta' from the road. As against this evidence, the respondent produced five years' sale average Exh.RI. Ali Muhammad, Patwari R.W.1, deposed that Killa No.l of square No.59 was situated at a distance of 3/4 Acres away from Sargodha Road and that the said land was without any access. A perusal of Exh.RI shows that it has been prepared on the basis of sales of lands for residential purposes from 21‑9‑1975 to 27‑4‑1976 except one sale of land measuring 4 Kanals 7 Marlas 3‑3/4 sarsaies for agricultural purposes which was sold for Rs.9,000 on 21‑9‑1975.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to this document Exh.R.I. and find that the compensation awarded to the appellant is in accordance with the average of the sales mentioned therein which has rather benefitted the appellant inasmuch as the market value of the land of. the appellant has been. assessed with reference to average sale price of the lands sold from 21‑9‑1975 to 27‑4‑1976 and not to; the last five years which if had been taken into consideration the compensation would have been lower than the assessed. After appraising the evidence, we have also concluded that the market value of the land as was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector in his award is fully supported by Exh.R.I. and the appellant has not been able to prove by producing cogent evidence on the record that the said determination was factually wrong. Having come to this conclusion after considering the evidence of the parties the argument of the' learned counsel or the appellant that the Collector did not determine the market price himself and only acted upon the directive of the Board of Revenue loses its force. Regarding the argument about future potentials of the land, suffice it to say, that the observation of the Collector in his award referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant is relatable to the nature of super‑structure and not to the ,future potentials of the land itself as such the said argument cannot be accepted. The appellant has not produced any evidence on the record specifying any amount regarding his claim due to change of place of business. There is no evidence that the appellant in fact had started business over the land in dispute and that the industrial concern allegedly raised by him had started functioning. The Collector himself visited the spot and after observing himself the nature of the super‑structure raised by the appellant estimated the cost of construction at Rs.60,000. Which finding has not been successfully dislodged by the appellant by any evidence. The findings of the trial Court under issue No.l have not been shown to be incorrect. After going through the entire evidence we have also concluded that the appellant has been adequately compensated and the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court does not call for any interference.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
M.Y.H./A‑335/L Appeal dismissed