SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.-This judgment will dispose of two regular first appeals, bearing Nos. 88 and 96, both of 1970. They are being taken together as they arise out of the same judgment.
2. On 1-5-1968 the Commissioner of Lahore Division issued a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of 281 kanals, 15 marlas of land situate in village Sehajpal.
This area was contiguous to the Lahore airport and was required for its extension. Subsequently, two more notifications under sections 6, 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were also issued. The Collector announced his award of compensations on 31-12-1968. In this award he found the market value of the land to be Rs. 2,000 per kanal and directed that the compensations payable to the owners be calculated at that rate. The appellants in the two appeals who had proprietary interests in the land felt dissatisfied with the award and upon their motion the Collector made a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court. This reference was beard by the Administrative Civil Judge, Lahore. Both parties led evidence before the learned Judge who after considering the same upheld the award. The appellants have now come in appeal to this Court.
3. The main question for consideration in the two appeals is as to what was true market value of the land at the time when the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued.
The appellant in R. F. A. No. 88 has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per kanal while the appellants in R. F. A. No. 96 have asked for the same at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per kanal.
4. The land in question was admittedly contiguouus to the Lahore airport and fell within the limits of the Lahore Municipality. It had metalled roads on two sides. According to the local Patwari (A. W. 1) it was bounded on one side by the airport and on the other three sides by water channel. It was connected with the rest of the village by a pacca road. Islam Ali Wasti (R. W. 1), the sole witness of the respondent, averred that on account of its proximity to the airport no building could be constructed upon it but he did not care to substantiate his assertion by reference to the relevant law, rule or notification creating the said prohibition. The learned standing counsel who appeared for the respondents also did not care to substantiate the said assertion even though we informed him that we were prepared to give him an opportunity for the purpose. It is in evidence that at a distance of one furlong from the land in question, though in a different village, a residential colony known as `Nishat Colony' was being constructed. Apart from the unsupported assertion of Islam Ali Wasti (R. W. 1), referred to above, there is nothing on the record which could indicate that the land in question could not be used for a similar purpose.
5. One of the appellants, namely, Malik Abdul Qayyum, who was also a practising lawyer, appeared in the witness box and asserted that he intended to convert his own area in the land acquired into a residential colony and that in pursuance of the said object he had even submitted a plan for approval to the competent authority. However, he did not produce any copy of the said plan nor did ha indicate as to what had happened to the same. In the circumstances it is difficult to place any weight upon his assertion in this regard.
6. The appellants examined the local Patwari, Manzar Abbas (A. W. 1), and a broker, Abdul Aziz (A. W.
2), to prove the price of the land intended for residential purposes in the village. According to these witnesses the price of such land varied from Rs. 250 to 300 per marls which gave a rate of Rs. 5,000 or Rs. 6,000 per kanal. They, however, did not care to produce any mutation or copy of any sale deed to substantiate their assertion. It should be noticed that the village in which Nishat Colony was being constructed also fell within the halqa of Manzar Abbas (A. W. 1). Therefore, he must have been in possession of all the mutations regarding the sales made in that village. It is surprising that he was not asked to cite specific instances when the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 250 per marla or Rs. 300 per marla. Abdul Aziz (A. W. 2) admitted that he had kept no register with him and that he had not acted as broker in the village. He did not produce even his own sale deed evidencing the sale in his favour. In the circumstances the bald assertions of Manzar Abbas (A W. 1) and Abdul Aziz (A. W. 2) with regard to the prevalent price in the area cannot carry any conviction.
7. Manzar Abbas (A. W. 1) prepared a statement (Pxh. A/1) of average prices of the land in the village. This statement was based on the mutations attested in the year immediately preceding the issuance of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The transactions referred to in the statement can be tabulated as follows : PartiesDate of resgisTotal Mutation Noto thetration of theArea soldprice Transactionsale deedpaid K.M.Rs. s- 539Nawab in favour of18-6-19673931,13,000 Aslam.
545Niaz Ali in favour16-1-19680101,000 ofMuhammad Ali etc. 554Taleh etc., in9-6-19672460,000 favour of Abdur Rehman.
556Muhammad Shafi21-10-1967922,000 etc., in favour of Abdul Ghani.
560Hafiz Muhammad19-12-1967219,990 infavour of Bashir Ahmad.
561do.Do.2 19,990 The Collector as well as the trial Court were of the opinion that the transactions mentioned at serial Nos. 2, 5 and 6 could not be taken into consideration as they related to sales of very small parcels of land. We do not think that we would be justified in doing so. Sales of larger blocks indicated that the land was being purchased for agricultural purpose while sales of smaller area suggested that these were being acquired for residential purposes. Although, it is common ground between the parties that at the relevant time the land in question was being used for agricultural purposes, we have also found that there was no hurdle in its becoming a residential area, particularly when a colony was emerging at a distance of one furlong from it. It fell within the municipal area, was contiguous to the airport and was served by two metalled roads. We should, therefore, think that its price would lie somewhere in between the market value of the agricultural land and the market value of the land intended for residential purposes. In the circumstances, in the absence of comparatively more precise evidence, the mean between the average price o agricultural land and the average price of land intended for residential purposes in the area would appear to present a fair measure for determining its market value. From the mutation Nos. 539. 554 and 556, Old, which apparently related to sales for agricultural purposes the average price of the land comes to Rs. 2,423 per kanal. Similarly, from Mutations Nos. 545, 5 0 and 561 which appear to relate to sales of land for residential purposes the average prize comes to Rs. 9,105 per kanal. The m.-an between these average prices comes to Rs. 5,765 per kanal. It is to be noticed that in R. F. A. 88 the appellant has asked compensations at the rate of Rs. 3,600 per kanal while in R. F. A. 96 the appellants have claimed the same at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per kanal. Considering the mean between the average prices of the two categories of land the price claimed by the appellants in the two appeals do not appear to be at all unreasonable. We would, therefore, direct that the compensations be paid to the appellants at the rates claimed by them.
8. The local Patwari (A. W. 1) has also stated that at the relevant time four trees were standing on the land in question. He assessed their value between Rs. 1,100 and Rs. 1,200. There was no rebuttal on the part of the respondents. However that may be, in their memoranda of appeal the appellants have not made any separate claims on account of the price of the trees but that they have included the same in their own estimate of the market value of the land in question. Since we are allowing them compensations at the rates asked by them we need not separately consider their claims in respect of the value of the trees.
9. The appellants in the two appeals alleged that consequent upon the acquisition of the land in question their remaining holdings had b.-en cut off and by virtue of clause thirdly of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act they were entitled to receive damages on that account. It is to be observed that this clause requires that while determining compensations the damage sustained by an owner by reasons of severance of his holdings should also be kept in mind. It may be stated that the appellants have led no evidence whatsoever with regard to the damage sustained by them in this regard. Although Manzar Abbas (A. W. 1) did state that formerly the land of Malik Abdul Qayyum, appellant in R. F. A. No. 88, fell on a matalled road but after acquisition his remaining holding was reached only by a katcha road, yet neither he nor Malik Abdul Qayyum (A. W. 3) gave any estimate of the damage suffered on that account. This being so we are unable to allow any compensation to Malik Abdul Qayyum under clause thirdly of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
10. The appellants further claimed that at the relevant time chart crop was standing on the land.
The relevant Khasra Girdawari has not been produced. That was the best evidence in support of this assertion. The appellants have also led no other evidence to show the area which was covered by the chart crop at the relevant time. We are, therefore, not prepared to entertain the claim of the appellants on this account. The appellant in R. F. A. No. 88 further averred that he had a house and office in the land in question. We can find no satisfactory evidence on the record in support of this assertion. We are, therefore, unable to consider this claim also.
11. For the reasons stated above we accept these appeals with costs and direct that the compensations be paid to the appellants at the rate claimed by them, respectively, that is at rate of Rs. 3,600 per kanal in R. F. A. No. 88 and at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per kanal in R. F. A.
96. The appellants shall also be entitled to solatium for compulsory acquisition at the rate of 15 percentum as well as to interest as provided by section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the compensations payable to them.