1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated the 16th of October 1964 passed on a reference made by the Collector of Karachi under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Lands of the respondents were acquired by the Government under two notifications dated the 19th of October 19 3 and the 3rd of December 1953; it was, however, stated at the Bar that the possession of the land was taken in the month of January 1954. After the parties filed their respective claims, the Collector of Karachi gave a joint award on the 3rd of May 1956, and it only be appropriate to reproduce the following portion of it in order to appreciate the contentions raised in this appeal. Various persons have filed in their written claims.
2. Almost all of them are claiming fancy prices ranging from Rs, 3 to Rs, 5 per sq. yard in support of their claims, they state that the rate claimed by them is according to the market value prevailing in the locality. I have got the list of recorded sales from the Taluka office. The list shows that the average rate of sale in Deh Thano during the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 is not less than Rs, 6,185- 4-8 and Rs, 8,984-11-8 per acre respectively. Similarly in Deh Mehran, the average rate of sale is its.
3. 9,114 and Rs, 9,899-6-6 per acre during the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 respectively. Obviously there appears a glaring element of speculation as otherwise such high rates do not represent market value of an agricultural land specially of Karachi Taluka where there is no hope of cultivation due to absence of canals. The agricultural land in Dehs Mehran and Thano is generally lying waste and does not produce any income to its owner. The only reason which is responsible for such high prices is this that there is an acute shortage of accommodation in Karachi City. It has therefore become the principle of monied persons of Karachi to purchase land and raise housing society thereon. No vacant land is available in city which they can purchase for their purpose. They therefore move further to Karachi Taluka area and offer fancy prices because they are sure that in a year or two after the establishment of housing society they get back the purchase price of land and after that their housing society will run in gross profit. But they are mistaken in paying such high prices. They think that after purchase of agricultural land by them, they can straightaway raise housing society. But it is not so. They are required to get that agricultural land converted into Sikni first and for that they have to pay good amount of conversion charges which may run into thousands per acre in certain cases where the purchased land comes within the category "A" according to the orders in force of the Provincial Government, Karachi. If this aspect is known to the intending purchasers first I do not think they can offer such big prices of six or 8 thousand per acre for agricultural land of Karachi Taluka. This is the only reason and misunderstanding that prevails among the intending purchasers and that leads them to offer such big prices. All these reasons will show that there is clear speculation and these speculated prices do not at all represent prices worth the land. I therefore discard them and proceed with my award as under.
4. It may be said that the respondents had produced several witnesses and documents in support of their claims. Reference, however, to the following is noteworthy. Exh. 1/2 is a registered sale-deed dated the 14th of December 1953 evidencing sale of two acres of land at Rs, 7,000 per acre, and another produced by Ghulam Mohammad proving sale of three acres of land in Deh Thano on the a th of April 1950 for Rs, 36,300, which works out the rate at Rs, 12,100 per acre. This witness proved yet another sale of 23 ghuntas of land in the same Deh at Rs, 4,775 per acre, P. W. Husseinbai proved sale in the years 1951 and 1953, and so also Haji Muhammad, which were at the rate of not less than Rs, 5,000 per acre. On the state of the record, the learned Single Judge took the view that the average market value of the land during the relevant years, 1953 and 1954, was Rs, 8,984 per acre in Deh Thano and Rs, 9,899 in Deh Mehran. He held that the reasons that prevailed with the learned Collector of Karachi in rejecting, the evidence adduced before him, were based on conjectures. We have reproduced the passage from the award of the Collector of Karachi just to show that the view of the learned Single Judge in the circumstances of the case, was perfectly justified, and the order passed by him does not call for interference as in this Letters Patent Appeal.
5. There was no evidence whatever before the Collector of Karachi; in fact none was even led or produced before the learned Single Judge also, to the effect that the average sale-price or the market price that prevailed in the area was at any lesser figure. The rejection of the evidence produced by the respondents by the Collector of Karachi was clearly based on mere conjectures.
6. The learned Officer clearly imported his own personal knowledge about things and matters, and also the rates of several plots in the Co-operative Housing Societies in Karachi. The evidence led by the respondents clearly proved that the rate of the land in the area was at least at the rates that has been awarded by the learned Single Judge; in this connection reference to the sale of three acres of land in Deh Thano by the registered deed dated the 28th of April 1950 for Rs, 12,100, which was in fact made by the predecessor-in-title of the respondent No, 2 would be enough. It is a matter of common knowledge that the rates in the area which is adjacent to the main city of Karachi have been increasing from year to year, and the potential value of the land in question was always great. This is also a very relevant consideration in determining the market value of the land. Reference may be made to the cases reported as AIR 1939 P C 98, PLD 1968 Lah. 1360 and PLD 1960 Quetta 35 (sic).
7. The learned counsel for the appellant however vehemently contended that it was open to the Collector to reject a particular sale on the ground that it was of speculative nature. In this connection he referred to a Bombay case reported as AIR 1928 Born. 399 (sic). There can be no quarrel with the proposition advanced, but the question is whether there was evidence of any sort justifying the conclusion that the rates of land proved by the respondent were not true or genuine, or that the transactions were of speculative nature. The learned Collector of Karachi, as held above, imported his personal knowledge, which could not be the basis of rejecting the sales proved by the respondents. We are therefore clearly of the opinion that no exception can be taken with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this case.
8. We may, however, refer to an argument that was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents 14 and 15 were not entitled to any benefit arising out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. This point has not been taken in the memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal, and we may only say in reply that the case of these respondents was actually referred by the Collector of Karachi to this Court, along with the others under section 18 of the Act, and there being an error in the final order passed by the learned Single Judge dated the 16th of October 1965 in not including the names of these respondents, the learned Single Judge rectified the error on an application from these respondents and passed a separate order dated the 24th of May 1965.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents urged that in the final order passed by the learned Single Judge, there has been an omission, in that the statutory interest payable to the respondents under section 34 of the Act has not been mentioned. In this connection they pointed out that the Collector of Karachi had himself awarded interest at 6%. Since there was an obvious omission in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we may only clarify that the respondents are also entitled to the statutory interest at the rate granted to them by the Collector of Karachi.
10. For the reasons given above, we see no merits in this appeal and dismiss it, with the clarification made above. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.