KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION Versus KHALIDA LATIF

This is a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award of the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi East, dated 18th January, 1986 in respect of a land measuring one acre situated in Survey No. 52 of Deh Tore, Tapo Konkar, Taluka and District Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the land in question.

2. The land in question was acquired by the Provincial Government for the benefit of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as the K.E.S.C., for establishing 220 V Transmission Lines Tower Nos. 71 and 72 on the Main Super Highway adjacent to Toll Plaza. On 30‑12‑1984 notices under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to the owner, namely, Malik Latif son of Ahmad Din in response to which the owner namely Malik Latif filed objections and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.250 per square yard, total amounting to Rs.12,10,000 and Rs.15,00,000 as loss and damages. The K.E.S.C did not file any comment to the claim of the said owner. The District Magistrate, Karachi East, on 18‑1‑1986, after considering the objections filed by the owner and other relevant facts awarded the compensation in the following words:

"As stated above, compensation is to be determined with reference to the market value prevalent on 21‑9‑83. The words 'market value' means the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. While assessing the market value, potentialities of the acquired land and the use to which the land could be put are also taken into consideration.

Taking into consideration all the above factors and giving due regard to the importance of location of the land, I award the rate of Rs.200 (rupees two hundred only) per sq. yard. In addition, I award 25 statutory as admissible under the Act. I further award interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 17‑1‑85 the date on which possession of the land was taken. '

As regards, the claim of Rs.15,00,000 lodged by the land owner on account of losses and damages, I may state that no damages have been sustained by the land owner. Hence I do not award anything on this account. "

3. Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate for the K.E.S.C. who has filed this application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has vehemently opposed the award and stated that the market value assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi East is imaginary and on the high side. He has referred to section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act to Support his contention that while determining the market value, the Collector has considered the commercial potentialities and future benefits of the acquired land which is contrary to law. Mr. S. Ashiq Raza, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Advocate‑General, Sindh has supported the award.

4. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) has clearly defined the matters to be considered while determining compensation. The first consideration is the market value of the land at the time of publication of the notification under section 7. Besides, there are five other criterias defined in section 23 of the Act, 1894 for determining compensation which includes damages sustained by the owner due to the destruction of standing crops or trees, or from the severing of acquired land with the other land, injury suffered by the owner due to acquisition, change of residence or place of business of the owner due to such acquisition and lastly any bona fide result from diminution of the profits of land during the period commencing after publication of the declarations and the time of Collector's taking possession of the land. Section 24 of the Act, 1894 does not create any bar in determining compensation on the basis of market value. I am fortified in my view by the case Siddiq and 23 others v. The Deputy Commissioner, East Karachi and another (PLD 1982 Kar. 147) where the compensation was awarded by the Deputy Commissioner East), Karachi, considering the market value. A Division Bench of the Court upheld the award and further held that the market value of the acquired land was rightly determined on the basis of sales which were in respect of the land either in the vicinity of the acquired land and near about the relevant time when the lands in question were acquired.

5. In the case of Land Acquisition Collector v. Badeen and 5 others (1989 CLC 379), a learned Single Judge of this Court Mr. Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, J. (as his Lordship then was) upheld the evidence given in support of the market value of the land. In this reported case the land was situated in Deh Moidan, Taluka Karachi and was acquired for the purpose of construction of reserve oil area of Hub Dam, Karachi, Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.600 per acre. The learned District Judge, Karachi, enhanced the compensation from Rs.600 per acre to Rs.5,000 per acre. In the First Appeal before this Court it was modified and the compensation was fixed at Rs.3,000 per acre. The findings of the learned District Judge were, however, maintained. The rate was fixed by this Court in the last‑mentioned case while keeping in view general trend of increases in the price of land in and around Karachi city and its potentials. The trend in the increase of prices of land was also considered in the last‑cited case where it was observed by the said learned Judge that during the years 1973 to 1980 there was an increase of 100 per cent. in the prices of land. In the case of Comdr. Faiz Elahi and 3 others v. Multan Improvement Trust and another (1992 CLC 267), a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court held after considering several authorities that the Court has power to examine inflationary trend, depreciation in the currency of country between the date of acquisition and the date of charge. For further reference see case of Province of Punjab v. Malik Altaf Ahmed and others (1993 CLC 179).

6. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Karachi East, has considered thel market value of the property prevailing in the area and has also considered the situation of the land in question. After considering all the relevant facts available, he has rightly come to the conclusion that the compensation for the land in suit should be Rs.200 per sq. yard. In addition to the same he has also awarded 25 % statutory compensation as admissible under the Land Acquisition Act and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 17‑1‑1985 when the physical possession of the land was delivered to the K.E.S.C. which fact has not been denied by either of the parties. Till this date the K.E.S.C. has not paid the required amount of compensation to the owners.

7. I have considered the award and have also 'gone through the contention of Mr. Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori. In view of the above‑quoted law and facts, I am of the considered view that the award was passed on proper factual assessment and I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Application filed by the K.E.S.C. under section 18 of the Act, 1894 is dismissed and the objections are overruled. Civil Reference No. 1 of 1988 stands disposed of in the above terms.

H.B.T./K‑14/K. Appeal dismissed.