PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus KHAN

MUNIR A.SHEIKH, J.-- This is an appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 21-2-1987, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang on reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that land measuring 19 kanals 11 marlas owned by the respondents 1 to 3 and 15 kanals 19 marlas owned by respondents 4 to 7 situated in Mouza Sipra, Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang was acquired through notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the official Gazette on 21-3-1979.The Lard Acquisition Collector delivered the award on 29-3-1984 in which he assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.12,000 per acre which according to him was the market price of the land at the relevant time. The respondents did not accept the compensation assessed at the said rate and made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making reference to the Court for its decision regarding quantum of compensation. Consequently reference was made to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang. In the reference, the respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.32,298 per acre as according to them this was the market price of the land at the relevant time. The reference was contested by Canal and Drainage Department, Faisalabad which filed written reply to the reference. The learned Senior Civil Judge framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the price of the disputed land as assessed by the Collector is incorrect and un-proportionate? If so, what should be the correct price?

(2) Relief.

3. In support of their case the respondents examined Barkhurdar as P.W.1, Muhammad Sharif P.W.2 and Khan one of the respondents appeared as P.W.3. Respondents also produced copies of sale-deed Exs.Pl and P2 and award Ex.P3. On the other hand, the appellants produced the map of Mouzas Exh.D1, Naksha Wasuli Moawaza Ex.D2 and Naksha Jeem Ex.D3.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the evidence of the parties both documentary and oral came to the conclusion that the market value of the suit land was Rs.20,000 per acre, therefore, on the said basis the compensation of land measuring 19 kanals 11 marlas owned by respondents 1 to 3 was determined as Rs.48,875 and price of the land of respondents 4 :o 7 was accordingly determined as Rs39,875. They have also been allowed 15 per cent of compensation on account of compulsory acquisition. Compound interest at the rate of Rs.8% from the date of possession which was held to be November, 1979 to the date of payment of such access amount in the Court has also been allowed by the trial Court which passed the impugned judgment dated 21-2-1987 accordingly.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial Court has determined the compensation on the basis of Ex.Pl which is sale-deed regarding sale of land in Mouza Salary made on 18-2-1981 two years after the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which could not be made the basis for such determination is the market price on the date. publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act relevant as such the impugned judgment should be set aside and t h, compensation awarded by the Collector be maintained.

6. It was an admitted fact that no sale transaction was made in Mouza Sipra where the land is situated by the time notification under section 4 of the Act was, published. According to map of Mouza Ex.D1 produced by the appellants themselves on one side of Mouza Sipra is Mouza Jampur and on the other side is Mouza Salara. Both Mouza Jampur and Mouza Salara are contiguous to Mouza Sipra. From the evidence brought on the record it is clear that only one sale was made in Mouza Jampur on 12-6-1978 according to which 4 kanals of land was -old for Rs.6,000 on 12-6-1979 and average sale price of the land accordingly comes to Rs.12,000 per acre and the Collector assessed the compensation on the basis of this sole transaction being nearer to the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21-3-1979. The respondents however, produced sale-deed dated 18-2-1981. Ex.P1 according to which land measuring 35 kanals 10 marlas in Mouza Salara was sold for an amount of Rs.1,000,00 and the average price according to this document comes to Rs.22 535 per acre. They also produced Ex.P2 which is a sale-deed dated 13-2-1984 according to which average sale price comes to Rs.25,000 per acre. It is evident from Ex.D3 that the.. land in dispute was canal irrigated land. It is nobody's case that any sale took place at the relevant time in the Mouza Sipra where the land is situated. The Collector assessed the compensation on the basis _'-Only on sale which was made on 12-6-1978 in Mouza Jampur assuming that the Ticket price of the land at the relevant time in the Mouza in question was 3_s.12,000 her acre which according to our view could not be the only determining factor about the market price of the land in dispute at the relevant time. It was not safe to base the findings only on one sale transaction. Through ExP1 sale of and was made in Mouza Salara two years after the notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act according to which as noted above average tile price per acre comes to Rs.22,535.20. Learned counsel for the appellants is not right in arguing that the trial Court has determined the compensation according to the sale. The learned trial Court keeping in view this sale having taken place.. in the adjoining Mouza two years after the publication of notification under section 4 of the land Acquisition Act in the official Gazette and after considering the factor of inflation occurred those days arrived at the conclusion that the market value of the said land was Rs.20,000 per acre. In the absence of any sale having taken place in the Mouza in dispute and there being only one sale transaction an adjoining Mouza Jampur and another sale evidenced by Ex.Pl having been made in another Mouza Salara two years after the notification, the learned trial Court has rightly adopted the middle course and determined the market price at Rs.20,000 keeping in view both these transactions. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade us that the learned trial Court committed any Illegality in determining the said compensation at the said rate.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the Collector determined the market price in accordance with the rules framed under section 55 off the Land Acquisition Act and the learned trial Court could not have 'interfered with that unless it was found that the said rules have been violated. The submission has no force. The rules framed under section 55 of the Act are for the guidance of the officers in all matters connected with the enforcement of the Act according to section 55 itself are not in any manner binding on the Court when deciding reference under section 18 of the Act. It is provided in section 55 that the Government has the power to make rules consistent with the Act for guidance of officers. Under section 23 of the Act market price of the land is to be determined taking into consideration certain matters mentioned therein and it cannot be argued that market price of the land cannot be determined by the Court at any rate higher than the rates at which Collector had determined it on the basis of formula provided to him by the Government.

8. For the foregoing reasons the appeal has no force which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

AA./P-38/L Appeal dismissed.