2017 Khalil Aziz vs.

Collector Land Acquisition & others SCR 929

(Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J)

2017 SCR 929

Present: Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J.

Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.

1. Khalil Aziz ---Appellant

versus
Collector Land Acquisition & 3 others---Respondents

2. WAPDA & 2 others---Appellants

versus
Khalil Aziz & another

Civil Appeals No.27 & 36 of 2016, decided on 27.5.2017

(On appeal from the judgement and decree of the High

Court dated 08.12.2015 in civil appeal No.03 of 2009)

(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894---

---market value of plot---urban land---distance of yards---

may be of significant nature---for determining market value---land
at main road and the land having no approach to main road---may
have difference of millions of rupees in market value---It may be
observed here that the distance of yards may make difference of
milIions in the market value of the property situate in the urban
areas. The piece of land situate at the main road may be of a value
many times higher as compared to the piece of the land which
although is adjacent to road but has no a approach to main road.
[p.934] A
---market value of plot---mere tendering of transfer orders--
-of other plots not sufficient---landowner has to prove---location,
nature, kind or potential value same---as of plots sold under
transfer orders--- mere tendering of the transfer orders of the other
plots is not sufficient until and unless the landowner has not
proved that the acquired land is location wise similar and Its
SCR 930 SUPREME COURT RECORDER VOL. XXVI

nature, kind or potential value is same as that of the transacted

plots.[p.934] B
---land acquisition---in piratical way---without consent of
the landowners---under power of state---effectees of land
acquisition entitled to---get maximum possible benefits--- rhls
court time and again has observed that here the lands are not
acquired with the consent of the owners rather they have been
deprived of their lands under the powers of the state, the owners
are entitled to get maximum lJossibie benefits. After evidence
available on record, we are satisfied that the learned High court has
already extended the maximum possible benefit to the landowner
while making enhancement. Furthermore, it shows that no
misreading/non-reading or violation of law has been committed by
the High Court while passing the same. [p.935] C
Mr.Arshed Mehmood Mallick, Advocate for the appellant
in appeal No. 27 of 2016 and for respondents in appeal
No.36 of 2016.
M/s Javed Najam-us-Saqib, Advocate & Mehmood
Hussain Ch., Addl. Advocate-General for the respondents
in appeal No. 27 of 2016 and for the appellants in appeal
No.36 of 2016.

Date of hearing: 23.05.2017

JUDGMENT:
Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.— The titled appeals have been
directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court
08.12.2015, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-landowner,
Khalil Aziz, has been disposed of in the following manners:-
“The upshot of the above discussion is that the
whole plot No.185 of the petitioner/appellant,
measuring 40x60 would be deemed to have been
acquired for the compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-
along with 15% compulsory charges. The
2017 Khalil Aziz vs. Collector Land Acquisition & others SCR 931
(Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J)

petitioner shall also be entitled to 10% of

Rs.45,00,000/- as has been ordered by the
learned Reference Judge because land has been
acquired after considerable delay. The petitioner
shall also be entitled to 6% per annum on the
enhanced amount as was awarded by the learned
Reference Judge.”

2. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that a

part of land measuring 30’x60’ out of the plot No.185, owned by
the appellant, Khalil Aziz, measuring 40’x60’, situate at sub-sector
F/3, Part IV, Mirpur, was acquired by the Collector Land
Acquisition for construction of a link road. The Collector Land
Acquisition determined the market value of the acquired piece of
the plot as Rs.38,81,250/-. Feeling dissatisfied from the aforesaid
compensation, the landowner filed reference application. It was
averred in the application that the plot in question is of commercial
nature and is situate at main Kotli, Mirpur road and the price of the
same is not less than Rs.2,00,000,00/-. It was also submitted that
total measurement of the plot in question is 40’x60’ but the
Collector Land Acquisition has acquired only 30’x60’ the
remaining part of the plot has became useless for the appellant,
therefore, the Collector be directed to award the whole plot. It was
also stated that the award has been issued after one year of the
issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1984 and during this period the price of the plot has been
raised but the Collector Land Acquisition has not considered this
aspect of the case. The learned Reference Judge after necessary
proceedings, while accepting the reference application made 10%
enhancement in the compensation amount and also issued the
direction to pay interest at the rate of 6% per centum per annum on
the enhanced amount, furthermore, the Collector shall also acquire
the remaining part of the plot. Against the judgment and decree
passed by the Reference Judge the landowner filed an appeal
before the High Court and the learned High Court vide impugned
judgment and decree dated 08.12.2015 disposed of the same in the
terms indicated in the preceding paragraph. Now the landowner
SCR 932 SUPREME COURT RECORDER VOL. XXVI

filed appeal before this Court for further enhancement, whereas,

the appellants, WAPDA & others filed appeal for setting aside the
enhancement made by the Courts below.

3. Mr. Arshed Mehmood Mallick, Advocate, the learned

counsel for the appellant, Khalil Aziz, argued that the impugned
judgment is against law and the facts of the case which is not
sustainable in the eye of law. He contended that the documentary
as well as the oral evidence produced by the landowner has not
been appreciated by the Courts below in a legal manner. The
judgments of the Courts below are based on misreading and non-
reading of the record. He forcefully contended that the documents
available on record as Exh.PI to Exh.PN are the certified copies of
the transfer orders of the plots, issued by the Mirpur Development
Authority, in the year 2007, while the award in the matter in hand
has been announced on November, 2008 after more than one year.
In this way, the said transfer letters were relevant to determine the
actual price of the plot in question but the Courts below have not
considered the same. He prayed for acceptance of appeal and
fixation of the compensation of the acquired plot as
Rs.2,00,000,00/-.

4. On the other hand, M/s Javed Najam-us-Saqib, Advocate

and Mehmood Hussain Ch., the learned Additional Advocate-
General strongly controverted the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the landowner. They contended that the
judgments passed by both the Courts below are contrary to law and
the record of the case. They submitted that the Collector Land
Acquisition determined the compensation according to the market
value of the plot. The learned Reference framed issue regarding the
market value of the plot and onus of proof of the same was upon
the landowner. The learned Reference Judge decided the said issue
against the landowner on the ground that he failed to prove the
same but despite that enhanced the compensation only on the
pretext of inflation in the prices and devaluation of the currency.
The learned High Court also committed the same illegality while
further enhancing the compensation. They prayed for setting aside
2017 Khalil Aziz vs. Collector Land Acquisition & others SCR 933
(Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J)

the judgments of the Courts below and maintaining the

compensation assessed by the Collector.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

parties and gone through the record along with the impugned
judgment with utmost care and caution. The landowner while filing
the reference application made the prayer that the Collector Land
Acquisition be directed to acquire the remaining part of the plot
measuring 10’x60’, moreover, the compensation of the plot be
fixed as Rs.2,00,000,00/-. The record shows that the landowner by
producing the evidence proved that the Collector Land Acquisition
acquired a part of the plot in question measuring 30’x60’ and the
remaining part of the plot measuring 10’x60’, cannot be utilized
for any purpose. The learned Reference Judge while accepting the
claim of the landowner ordered the Collector to acquire the
remaining part of the plot and pay its compensation to the owner.
However, to the extent of the claim that the market value of the
plot in question was not less than Rs.2,00,000,00/-, the landowner
failed to bring on record any solid evidence. In the reference
application the version of the landowner was that the plot in
question is situate at the main road linked to the Kotli-Mirpur
Districts and is of the commercial nature. The witnesses produced
by the landowner have not supported this version of the landowner.
The witness, namely, Ch.Nazir Ahmed, stated in his statement
that:-

‫"پﻼٹ زير ريفرنس ميرپور تا کوٹلی روڈ سے ساٹه فٹ کی‬

‫دوری پر واقع ہے۔ سائل کے پﻼٹ سے پہلے ايک اور پﻼٹ‬
‫واقع ہے اُس کے بعد سائل کا پﻼٹ آتا ہے۔ سائل کے پﻼٹ کو‬
"‫ميرپور تا کوٹلی روڈ نہيں لگتی بلکہ دوسری روڈ لگتی ہے۔‬

The witness, Nazakat Rashid, while recording his statement

deposed that:-

‫"سائل کے پﻼٹ سے آگے ايک اور پﻼٹ ہے اس کے بعد‬

"‫مين سڑک آتی ہے۔‬
SCR 934 SUPREME COURT RECORDER VOL. XXVI

The landowner while recording his statement has not stated even a
single word that the location, nature or potential value of the plot
in question and the plots transferred through the orders produced
by him in evidence are the same. He also admitted that in the lane
in which the plot in question is situate no commercial mall has
been built, moreover, he did not sell or purchase any plot in the
relevant sector at the rate of Rs.2,00,000,00/. He also admitted that
in sector F/3 the facility of Gas is not available. After examining
the evidence produced by the landowner it can safely be said that
the plot in question is not of commercial nature. It may be
observed here that the distance of yards may make difference of
millions in the market value of the property situate in the urban A
areas. The piece of land situate at the main road may be of a value
many times higher as compared to the piece of the land which
although is adjacent to road but has no approach to the main road.
Thus, mere tendering of the transfer orders of the other plots is not
sufficient until and unless the landowner has not proved that the
acquired land is location-wise similar and its nature; kind or
potential value is same as that of the transacted plots. In support of B
this view reference may be placed on an unreported judgment of
this Court delivered in a case titled Muhammad Siddique v.
Collector Land Acquisition & others (civil appeal No.78 of 2014
decided on 29.06.2016), wherein it has been held that:-

“10. There is no scientific formula for the purpose

of determination of the value of the land. Generally,
the estimation to some context may differ according
to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
In some cases, the kind of land is very much material
when the potential value of the land has to be
determined keeping in view the agricultural produce
value and in such case the market value of the land at
large scale may be similar, but in case of urban
property, the market value depends upon the
prospective value of the land, its use or rental value,
even the distance of yards may make difference of
millions in its market value. The piece of land located
on a road or main street may be of a value many
2017 Khalil Aziz vs. Collector Land Acquisition & others SCR 935
(Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J)

times higher as compared to the piece of land which

although is adjacent to road but has no approach to
the main road. In such cases mere tendering of sale-
deeds is not sufficient unless according to the
peculiar facts of each case the land owner has not
proved that the acquired land is location-wise similar
and its nature, kind or potential value is same as that
of the transacted land i.e., the subject matter of the
sale-deeds.”

This Court time and again has observed that where the lands are
not acquired with the consent of the owners rather they have been
deprived of their lands under the powers of the State, the owners
are entitled to get maximum possible benefits. After scrutinizing
the evidence available on record, we are satisfied that the learned
High Court has already extended the maximum possible benefit to C
the landowner while making adequate enhancement in the
compensation. Furthermore, the impugned judgment also shows
that no misreading/non-reading or violation of law has been
committed by the High Court while passing the same. The version
of the appellants, WAPDA & others that the Collector Land
Acquisition assessed the proper compensation and the Courts
below without any justification enhanced the same, is not
supported by any evidence. Even otherwise, when we have reached
the conclusion that the learned High Court rightly enhanced the
compensation in view of the material available on record, there is
no need to record separate findings on the appeal filed by WAPDA
& others, for setting aside the enhancement made by the Courts
below in the compensation.

In view of the above, finding no force both the appeals are

hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeals dismissed

--------------------