MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through the Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑ This judgment shall dispose of R.F.A. No.139 of 1987 also.
2.This is an appeal against judgment and decree dated 13‑6‑1987 passed by Mr.Badar‑uz‑Zaman Chattha, learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the official Gazette on 6‑12‑1976 for acquisition of land measuring 1792 kanals 14 marlas situated in village Charar, Tehsil and District Lahore, for housing scheme of Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Limited. This land included the land measuring 28 kanals owned by the appellants. The present dispute relates to this land. The Acquisition Collector announced the award on 24‑12‑1978 and on the same day the Collector took over possession of the land. He fixed the price of the land at Rs.5,500 per Kanal. The price. of Mango trees was fixed at Rs.320 per tree, price of Jaman trees was fixed at Rs.160 per tree and that of Bery trees was fixed at Rs.240 per tree whereas price of Sheesham trees was fixed at Rs.160 per tree. Compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 25% were also allowed to the appellants on the compensation so determined. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the determination of the quantum of price of land by the Land Acquisition Collector, made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making reference to the Court for determination of the question of increase in the quantum of compensation. Consequently, the reference was made to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. The appellants claimed the compensation at Rs.20,000 per. Kanal being the market value of the disputed land at the relevant time. The respondent No.2 contested the reference and it was averred that the price of the land fixed in the award was fixed on the average price of the land sold m that area and it was fair and just. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:‑
(1) Whether the compensation fixed by the Collector is unfair and unjust? If so, what should be the correct compensation? OPA.
(2) Relief.
After examining evidence, the learned trial Court under issue No.1 held that the price of the. land was Rs.20,000 per Kanal. The price of Mango trees was fixed at Rs.1,000 per tree, price of Sheesham trees at Rs.800 per tree, price of trees of Bery at Rs.800 per tree and price of Jaman trees was determined at Rs.1,000 per tree. Award of compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 25% was also upheld. In this appeal, the said judgment and decree of the trial Court has been challenged to the extent of not allowing to the appellants the compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants maintained that after once the compensation was increased by the Court the appellants were entitled as a matter of right to the grant of compound interest at the rate of 8% under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act which could not have been disallowed by the learned trial Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgment reported as Nishat Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. v. Sher Ahmed Khan and others P L D 1976 S C 531.
5. We have considered the argument and find that the submission without force. In the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act if appellants did not claim the interest under section 28 of the Act. From t) judgment of the trial Court it is also evident that no such claim was pressed even during the proceedings and even in the arguments since the impugned judgment silent about this aspen from which it can safely be presumed that the appellants did not press this claim. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case that the appellants have been adequately compensated inasmuch as the price of the compensation for the land has been awarded to them at Rs.20,000 per banal as claimed by them. They have also been awarded sufficient compensation regarding the trees. The respondent No.2 admittedly deposited the amount immediately when called upon by the Land Acquisition Collector after pronouncement of the award and as such respondent No.2 having acted promptly in the payment of the compensation whatever was fixed by the Collector therefore, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants in the matter of allowing them compound interest as envisaged by l section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under section 29 of the Land Acquisition; Act the grant of compound interest is within the discretion of the Court and no person or party can claim it as a matter of right. On this point the provisions of section 28 are sufficiently clear. It has also been observed in the said reported judgment that the grant of interest under section 28 was discretionary with the Court and this judgment cannot be construed to argue that to claim such interest as a vested right of a party as is being canvassed. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case according to which the Court has to exercise discretion regarding grant of compound interest under section 28 of the Act. In the fact and circumstances of this as discussed above, we see good reasons to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants allow them compound interest under section 28 of the Act.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails which is dismissed without any order as to costs.
?/M‑751 /L Appeal dismissed.