' MUHAMMAD KAHLID ALVI, J.---With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is treated as pacca case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the property in dispute owned by the respondents was initially requisitioned by the Provincial Government on 13-7-1997 which is measuring 1 Kanal having 2000 square feet covered area with a rent of Rs.350 per month. The respondent filed an application under section 6 of the W.P. Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, (VII of 1956). The learned District Judge vide order dated 13-6-1989 fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1145 per month. The order was assailed by both the parties through F.A.O. No.170 of 1989 and F.A.O. No.200 of 1989. Both the F.A.Os. Were heard together and decided on 10-1-1996 and the compensation was fixed at Rs.1,820 per month. The respondent again filed application on 9-5-1996 claiming compensation of Rs.6,000 per month. The same was allowed vide order dated 1-8-2002 and the compensation was fixed at a rate of Rs.4,000 per month with three yearly increase at a.
Rate of 25% w.e.f. 30-6-1993. This order is being assailed through the instant appeal.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that provisions of section 6(1)C and (2) of the W.P. Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary) Powers Act, 1956 have been declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam w.e.f. 30-6-1993 by the Honourable Supreme Court in case PLD 1994 SC 141, therefore the compensation determined by the learned District Judge is not in accordance with law. It is further added that for the determination of fair rent the only course left open was to approach learned Rent Controller having jurisdiction in the matter.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that it has been declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred case that provisions of section 6(1)C and (2) give an undue advantage to the government as against the owner, therefore, determination of the fair rent/compensation in accordance with the prevailing market in the surrounding area in the only course open. It is further added that the disputed property is measuring 1 Kanal with a covered area of 200 Square feet falling in the heart of the city of Lahore, have much higher rental value.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. After the deletion of section 6(1)C and (2) of the Act, the only course open for the determination of fair rent/compensation is to go by the current market rent rate of the locality. Although there was not enough convincing material/evidence from either side but still the learned District Judge having considered the area and the locality of the property determined the rent at a rate of Rs.4,000 per month which by no means can be said to be exercised or illegal.
7. For what has been stated above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is accordingly dismissed.