MAULA BAKHSH Versus L.A.C.

This regular first appeal arises from the judgment, dated 12‑11‑1969 of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby a reference made to him under the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation was dismissed.

It was contended that the appellants had produced Exhs.P.2 and P.3 showing that the rate prevailing in the area immediately before the date of Notification was Rs.900 per Marla. The learned Senior Civil Judge excluded Exh.P.3 on the ground that it was a solitary. transaction whereas he totally ignored Exh.P.2 from his discussion. Reliance was placed on Collector Quetta v. Habib Ullah and 4 others P L D 1970 Quetta 35 as also Government of Pakistan v. Maulvi Ahmad Saeed 1983 C L C 414 for the view that even solitary transactions could be considered as an index of the prevailing prices. Both the sales evidenced by Exhs.P.2 and P.3 were shown to have taken place a few months before the date of mutation and in terms of the Government of Pakistan's case those should have been exclusively relied upon to determine the market value. He cited Fazalur Rehman and others v. General Manager, S. I.D.B. and another P L D 1985 SC 158, wherein it was laid down that past sales may not be relied upon for determining the market value. Further, it was urged that oral evidence was as well totally ignored and that keeping the typical situation of the land in dispute almost in the centre of Lahore city, its potential value was not at all kept in mind.

3. On the other hand Mr. Afzaal Qureshi supporting the impugned judgment argued that the average of Rs.600 per Marla was based upon all sorts of sales including the lowest as well as the highest and that the same truly represented the market value prevailing in the vicinity. In the alternative he suggested that the rate of Rs.900 per Marla claimed by the appellant. may be tagged to the rate allowed to the appellant in the Award and thus the average might come to Rs.750 per Marla.

4. Unfortunately it has not been shown if the average price calculated by the Collector was based upon sales immediately preceding the acquisition. In the Government of Pakistan's case in paras. 24 to 26 of the judgment it was noted with emphasis that the solitary sale was more reflective having taken place about four and a half months before the issuance of the Notification. There were other sales too in that case; but those were all ignored and the closest to the date of acquisition of land alone was accepted to determine the rate of compensation. Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate for the appellants insisted that the same principle may be applied here and that the sales shown by Exhs. P.2 and P.3 having taken place a couple of months or so earlier, should alone be accepted as true index of the market value. He referred to section 23 of the Act, which indeed compulsorily requires that the market value as obtaining on the date of Notification should be kept in mind while determining the compensation. This appeared to be the reason to hold in Fazalur Rehman's case that sales taking place comparatively in the longer past may be ignored. On this view of the matter, Exhs.P.2 and P.3 totally overlooked by the learned Senior Civil Judge in the impugned judgment, formed the true basis for valuing the land in question. These gave out an average of Rs.900 per Marla. The additional reason for so holding was that the land in question was situate quite near the Zila Kutchery which was the city centre of Lahore and speaks for itself. The learned lower Court did not discuss the oral evidence on the point. It clearly afforded a ground to see that the location of the land itself deserved some consideration.

5. As a result the appeal is accepted and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.600 to Rs.900 per Marla. It would mean that the appellants will be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.300 per Marla. They shall also be entitled to compound interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 8 per cent from the date of possession, namely 20‑4‑1960 till this amount is deposited in the Court. Otherwise the parties shall bear their own costs.

H. B. T. /M‑718/L Appeal accepted.