Residential and commercial property ,not determine by just revenue record, Land acquisition,

- June 02, 2023

Zair nazar case government ju zameen kharidti hai aik aam aadmi se or us ko poore qeemat zameen ki ada nahi karti.

Issue iss baat per tha ke government ne zameen ki qeemat ju service Road banane ke liye kharidi gai thi us ka rate residential land (rahishi zameen) ke hisab se laga dia kionke zameen mehkma maal ke record mai sakni thi. jabke malik ne bataya ke zameen commercial hai. Appeal manzoor hoi or us ke accordingly raqam 3 lakh marla ke hisab se aada hoi

For more information call or Whatsapp 0324-4010279

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

R.F.A. No.13860/2019

Maj. (Retd) Bashir Ahmad V.

Province of Punjab, etc.

R.F.A. No.22896 of 2019.

Province of Punjab through LAC V.

Major (Retd.) Bashir Ahmad

Date of Hearing

25.05.2022.

Appellant(s) by

M/s Hafiz Rehman Aziz and Salman Ahmad

Dogar, Advocates.

Respondents

Malik Abdul Aziz Awan, Additional Advocate

General and Sajjad Ahmad Qureshi, LAC, Punjab

Highway.

MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, CJ:- The appellant

being dissatisfied from the compensation assessed by the respondentsacquiring agency reflecting from Award, filed a Reference under Section

18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Court of competent

jurisdiction and after recording evidence of both the parties, the learned

Referee Court while deciding issue No.4 enhanced the compensation from

Rs.100,000/- to Rs.150,000/- per marla.

Both the parties: the appellant/owner and the acquiring

agency/Government filed appeals bearing R.F.A. Nos.13860/2019 and

22896/2019, respectively. Obviously the Government has challenged the

enhancement whereas the appellant/owner has prayed for satisfaction of

his total claim of Rs.400,000/- per marla along with 15% compulsory

acquisition charges and 8% compound interest, which was not accepted

and only Rs.50,000/- were enhanced. Through this single judgment, the

said two appeals are being decided together.

R.F.A.No.13860 of 2019.

R.F.A. No.22896 of 2019.

I have heard the learned counsels for the appellant, the

learned Additional Advocate General and examined record of the case.

It is noticed that the learned Referee Court for determining

the compensation concluded the category of appellant‟s land as

„residential‟ and enhanced the compensation accordingly ignoring all the

relevant documentary evidence showing/establishing its use as

„commercial‟. Another important document, i.e. the report of the SubCommittee, containing the price of the land situated in Kahna village

adjacent to the appellant‟s land at the rate of Rs.300,000/- per marla

considering it as „commercial‟ was also ignored.

It is not denied by the respondents-acquiring agency that the

portion of land of appellant‟s running factory was acquired for

construction of service road. Hence, it is established from the record that

land of existing running factory was seized considering it „residential‟ on

the basis of revenue record for the purpose of construction of service

road, which is contrary not only to the existing status of the land but also

inconsistent with the settled principles of law enunciated by honourable

Supreme Court. It is settled law that not only the revenue record be

considered determining the category of the land but its use at the

acquiring time would also be relevant to examine its potentiality. Learned

Referee/trial Court, although, while enhancing the rate relied upon the

Price Assessment Chart prepared by the Sub-Committee but category of

the land was mistakenly declared „residential‟ merely on the basis of

R.F.A.No.13860 of 2019.

R.F.A. No.22896 of 2019.

revenue record and granted the compensation accordingly as assessed by

the Sub-Committee for Kahna village; hence, it is held that the learned

Referee Court has committed material illegality and irregularity while

declaring the appellant‟s land as „residential‟ and assessing the price

accordingly. It is well settled law that use of land at the time of

acquisition shall also be considered a factor to determine its

status/classification and revenue record cannot be the exclusive criteria to

determine its value and potential, whereas in this case classification of

land in dispute was determined on the basis of the revenue record. It is

also noticed that adjoining land was classified as „commercial‟ and

compensation was assessed accordingly. Another aspect is that the

potential of the land has also been ignored as undeniably many factories

in running position were also existing adjacent to the appellant‟s factory,

which was acquired by the respondents. Therefore, I am inclined to

interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Referee Court, as the

same are inconsonance with the law laid down by apex Court in a case

reported as Land Acquisition Collector, BOR Punjab vs. Syed Haroon

Iftikhar and others (2014 SCMR 659) and Land Acquisition Collector,

G.S.C., N.T.D.C., (WAPDA), Lahore and another vs. Mst. Surraya

Mehmood Jan (2015 SCMR 28). In the latter landmark judgment, it has

been held as under:-

“The principles that can be gleaned from the aforesaid

judicial precedents are that the term “market-value” as

employed in section 23 of the Act of 1894 implies the price

that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing buyer in an

open market arm‟s length transaction entered into without

any compulsion. Such determination must be objective rather

R.F.A.No.13860 of 2019.

R.F.A. No.22896 of 2019.

than subjective. While undertaking this exercise,

contemporaneous transactions of the same, adjoining or

adjacent as well as the land in the same vicinity or locality; in

dissenting precedents, may be taken into account. An award

of compensation of a similar, adjacent, adjoining land or in

respect of the land acquired in the same vicinity or locality

cannot be ignored. The classification of the land in the

Revenue Record cannot be the sole criteria for determining

its value and its potential i.e. the use of which the said land

can be put, must also be a factor. In this behalf, the use of the

land in its vicinity needs to be examined.” (underline

emphasized)

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the

compensation is granted to the appellant in terms of the price assessed by

the Sub-Committee for the commercial land as Rs.300,000/- per marla.

The other appeal bearing R.F.A. No.22896/2019, in consequence of

acceptance of R.F.A. No.13860/2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI)

CHIEF JUSTICE.

Approved for reporting.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.