ABDUL, HAMEED BALOCH, J.---Through this judgment we intend to dispose Regular First Appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2012, passed by learned District Judge, (Ad hoc), Quetta, (trial court), whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.
2. Precise facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a Reference within the meaning of Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, 1894) against the Award dated 9th November, 2007, against the appellants (defendants) contending therein that the respondents/ plaintiffs were owners of land situated in Mohal Karez Ibrahimzai, Mouza Sirki, Tappa Saddar-II, Tehsil City, District Quetta, measuring 23 poles i.e. 6262 square feet, having khasra Nos. 2207/5 and 2206/5. It was contended that the land of the respondents/plaintiffs has been acquired by the C&W Department for construction of a New Bridge adjacent to the old bridge under the project of widening and improvement of Brewery Road at Lora Nadi near Bolan Medical Complex Hospital, Quetta. The C&W Department started construction of a new bridge adjacent to the old bridge at Lora Nadi and same was completed in the year 2004. The concerned authority utilized the private land for widening of Brewery Road and construction of approach road to the newly bridge without adopting normal procedure of acquisition before or after starting the work at site. It was further contended that the respondents/ plaintiffs being aggrieved of illegal acquisition made correspondence with the concerned authorities and appraised them of their illegal act but despite that no heed was paid, as such the respondents/ plaintiffs approached High Court of Balochistan, who was pleased to issue directions for settlement of the dispute in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, on which the concerned authority deposited compensation amount on 1st February, 2007 for payment of the same to the respondents/plaintiffs. It was contended that approximately after three years preliminary, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 22nd February, 2007, on which the respondents/ plaintiffs filed their objections and contended that the market value of the land is Rs. 4000/- per square feet, as such the respondents/ plaintiffs are entitled for compensation amount at the market value. But the Collector without considering the material announced Award on 9th October, 2007 and awarded compensation amount of Rs.
77,68,060/-, which was in adequate and not according to the prevailing market value/rate. Hence it was prayed that Award dated 9th October, 2007 may kindly be modified and compensation of the land may also kindly be enhanced to Rs. 4000/- per square feet and Rs. 2500/-per square feet of the damaged/ landlocked/affected land thereon may pleased be awarded to the applicant according to the potential market value.
3. The appellants/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed rejoinder/ written statement contesting the averments of the Reference. It was objected that the reference has been filed with mala fide only to regularize illegal and unjustified payment made to the respondents/ plaintiffs on account of earth filling and land compensation awarded on account of devaluation and to have an approach to the so called affected area measuring 3540 square feet due to expansion of new bridge, no cause of action has accrued to the respondents/ plaintiffs against the appellants/defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the Award passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) is entirely in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs with no substantial record and the amount paid to the respondents/plaintiffs are unjustified and misappropriation of Government funds, the appellants/defendants Nos. 1 and 2 being well conversant have not been consulted while making assessment, the lower staff of Revenue Office calculated average rates on the basis of three year land mutations/transactions made in the said Mohal during the years 2004, 2005 and 2006. On merit it was contended by appellants/ defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that the Executive Engineer, Project Division-I in the very inception wrote a letter to the Executive District Officer (Revenue) for assessment of private land but same was not processed due to avoiding, attitude of the respondents / plaintiffs. Before construction of bridge the other government institutions the rates of the land were very low. It was averred that Rs. 17,11,000/- on account of earth filling and Rs. 7,95,000/- on account of so called devaluation of an approach to the affected area are entirely unjustified payment. In this regard appellant/ defendant No 2 being Secretary C&W Department and Project Engineer vide letter No. C-467/824-28/ADC dated 12.8.2006 clearly informed all the concerned that earth filling work made by the respondents/ plaintiffs is for encroachment of Nala and have no concern with construction of the bridge,, therefore, the same along with so called affected land may be deducted from assessm ent report. It was further averred in the written statement that in the year 2005 the committee after all detailed survey/assessment and keeping in view the unavoidable circumstances agreed to fix rate of Rs. 585/- per square feet plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges but the Executive District Officer (Revenue) without consulting appellants/defendants Nos.
1 and 2 himself enhanced the rate to Rs. 920/- per square feet. It was further stated that in compliance of order of High Court an amount of Rs. 6,594,294/-' was demanded from P&D Department as per request of Executive District Officer (Revenue). It was finally prayed that the Reference being frivolous, baseless may kindly be dismissed and irregular and unjustified payment made to the respondents/ plaintiffs may kindly be ordered to be recovered from them.
4. In his written statement the appellant/defendant No. 3 contended that a total area measuring 23 poles (6262 square feet) bearing khasra Nos. 2207/5 Min and No. 2206/5 Min situated in Mohal Karez Ibrahimzai, Mouza Sirki, Tappa Saddar-II, Tehsil City District Quetta owned by respondents/plaintiffs and Sui Southern Gas Company Limited Samtingli Road Quetta has been acquired for C&W Department through Executive Engineer, Project Division-I, Quetta for public purpose namely Acquisition of land for widening of Brewery road extending from Goli Mar Chowk to newly constructed bridge located along with Main Brewery Road. Names of owners of land are given in the Notification bearing No. Acq (3)-RB/2005/169 - dated 22nd February, 2007 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No compensation for damages were paid or tendered under Section 5 or 17 of the Act 1894. Under Section 11 an amount of Rs. 82,68,540/- has been awarded in favour of the concerned land owners vide Award dated 25th September, 2007.
5. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed following issues on 11th October, 2008: i. Whether applicants are owners of 23 poles? ii. What was the market value of land of locality in years 2004, 2005, 2006? iii. Whether the applicants were properly compensated by land acquisition and earth filling charges? iv. Whether the land acquisition properly valued? v. Whether an area measuring 3540 square feet affected? vi. Whether acquisition land is situated in commercial area of locality? vii. Whether the applicants are entitled for the relief claimed? viii. Relief?
6. In order to prove its case the respondents / plaintiffs produced as many as 10 witnesses, whereas in rebuttal the appellants / defendants produced two witnesses. After conclusion of the trial the learned trial court heard arguments and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment dated 31st July, 2012, the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs was decreed in the following terms: i. As per findings of issues Nos. 2 and 6, it is held that acquired land is a commercial property for which the official and private rate are Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3500/- per square feet. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per square feet measuring 6262 came under the alignment adjacent to widening Brewery Road extending from Goli Mar Chowk to the newly under construction bridge; ii. In addition to above 15% compulsory acquisition charges as admissible under subsection (2) of the section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is also allowed to be included in the compensation; ' iii. Hence by adding compensation charges it has further increased the rate of measuring 6262 property in question at the rate of Rs. 3450/- per square feet; iv. As for the 2nd property measuring 3540 square feet which has been affect/landlocked area is definitely devalued as it remained no more useful for the applicants. Though said land was also not used by the respondent as it became useless, but it has been effected due to the respondents project, due to which the applicants/ owners suffered/loss of land which was also a commercial property. Therefore, the compensation for this land is assessed to the minimum rate Rs. 2000/- per square feet as devalued charges and to have an access/ approach from Brewery Road to the affected landlocked area which amount became of Rs. 70, 80, 000/-; v. Thus the applicants are entitled for the recovery of compensation of Compensation for acquired property measuring 6262 at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per square feet and 15% compulsory acquisition charges equivalent to the tune of Rs. 21604900/- from the respondents jointly or severally.
That the applicants are entitled for recovery of devaluation charges of landlocked measuring 3540 as it was also commercial land at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per square feet equivalent to Rs .70, 80,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally.
That the acquisition amount which has been received by applicants under pretext through Ex: R/2- I to be deduced from additional granted decretal amount of this suit. vi. The respondents are directed to make payment of acquired land Rs. 21,603,900/- and landlocked area Rs. 70,80,000/- to applicants jointly and severally. vii. In the light of above granted relief the Award dated 9.10.2007 Ex. A/13 is reviewed and modified for the compensation of acquired land and landlocked area.
Hence being aggrieved of the same the appellants/ defendants have filed the instant appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the respondents as well as perused the record with their assistance. The respondents being aggrieved from the Award dated 5th October, 2007 filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in support of the Reference produced Abid Khan Property Dealer as Ahmed Khan Property Dealer as Ghulam Muhammad Property Dealer as AW-3, Muhammad Saleem Survey Officer BFA as AW-4, who produced Valuation Survey Report Ex: A/4-A, Naseebullah Senior Clerk EDO Revenue Office Quetta as AW-5, who produced order dated 30th May, 2006 Ex: A/5, objections of respondents Ex: A/6, letter dated 21st May, 2007 Ex: A/7, Notice under Section 9 of the Act Ex: A/8, Award Ex: A/13, Muhammad Hanif Patwari AW-6 produced copy of Fard, Naseebullah Senior Clerk EDO Revenue Office Quetta as AW-7 who produced letter No. 945 dated 25th June, 2007 issued by EDO (Revenue) Quetta, to Tehsildar City Quetta regarding Report of market value of the property Ex: A/17, Report No. 822 dated 6th June, 2007 by Tehsildar to EDO (Revenue) Quetta Ex: A/18m Report by Tehsildar City Quetta bearing No. 964 dated 5th July, 2007 to EDO (Revenue)
Quetta in respect of market value of the property Ex: A/20, Report in regard of market value of the property situated at Golimar Chowk near Brewery Road Quetta for the years 2004 to 2006 and 2007 Ex: A/21, Sarwar Ali Stenographer as AW-8 produced certificate Ex: A/22, Changaiz Khan Sub- Divisional Clerk C&W as AW-9 produced Photostat copy of certificate Mark: A/1. Respondent Allah Dad appeared and recorded statement for himself as well as attorney for other respondents.
8. The appellants produced Lund 'Ahmed Patwari as RW-1 who produced different documents which were already produced by respondents through witnesses containing 15 pages. While RW-2 Samuel Ayub Assistant Deputy Commissioner Office Quetta produced notices, objections etc. The appellants did not appear and record their statement before the trial court on oath:
9. The Award Ex: A/13 reveals that the Communication and Works Department started construction of new bridge adjacent to the old bridge under the project of widening and improvement of Brewery Road Quetta at Lora Nadi near BMC utilized privately owned land without adopting procedure of acquisition before starting work at the site. The owners of the land (respondents) objected, whereafter, survey was conducted. In Award the Collector further contended that the matter was referred by DCO Quetta to Secretary Government of Balochistan C & W Department for depositing/ assessing tentative cost of the suit land to enable for acquisition of the encroached land to regularize illegal occupation of B&R by means of construction of the bridge and widening road on the privately owned land. Whereas under Section 4 of the Act the utilization of private land the notification shall be published in the official gazette. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Section: "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.---(1) When-ever it .appears to the Collector of the District that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a Company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.
(2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by the Collector of the District in this behalf; and for his servants and workmen,--- to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the subsoil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such levels, boundaries and lines by placing marks and cutting trenches; and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and lines marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle: Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling-house unless with the consent of the occupier thereof without previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in writing of his intention to do so.
(3) The officer so authorised shall at the time of such entry pay or tender payment for all necessary damage to be done as aforesaid, and, in case of dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount so paid or tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to the decision of the Collector or other chief revenue officer of the District, and such decision shall be final."
10. The Constitution of the country guaranteed that it is fundamental right of a person to hold property in accordance with law and no person shall be deprived of the property without adopting legal procedure. The executive must carry sanction of law if the person deprived from his property.
Where action of the executive is without compliance of the law, render such action nullity in the eye of law. Reliance is placed on the case of Aamir Khalil v. Government of Pakistan through Director General ANF PLD 2004 Peshawar 251, wherein it was held: "17. Article 24 of the Constitution in a firm command prohibits that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with, law. The action of the Executive depriving a person of his property must carry the sanction of law behind it and unless that is shown/proved and until substantial compliance with the law itself is made while taking the action, the result which flowing therefrom would render such action nullity in the eye of law, coram non judice and the same would be reduced to naught."
11. It would not be irrelevant to reproduce Article 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973: "24. Protection of property rights. (1) No person shall be compulsorily deprived of his property save in accordance with law.
(2) No property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of save for a public purpose, and save by the authority of law which provides for compen-sation therefore and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on and the manner in which compensation is to be determined and given.
(3) Nothing in this Article shall affect the validity of--
(a) any law permitting the compulsory acquisition or taking possession of any property for preventing danger to life, property or public health; or
(b) any law permitting the taking over of any property which has been acquired by, or come into the possession of, any person by any unfair means, or in any manner, contrary to law; or
(c) any law relating to the acquisition, administration or disposal of any property which is or is deemed to be enemy-property or evacuee property under any law (not being property which has ceased to be evacuee property under any law); or
(d) any law providing for the taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period, either in the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property, or for the benefit of its owner; or
(e) any law providing for the acquisition of any class of property for the purpose of--
(i) providing education and medical aid to all or any specified class of citizens; or
(ii) providing housing and public facilities and services such as roads, water supply, sewerage, gas and electric power to all or any specified class of citizens; or
(iii) providing maintenance to those who, on account of unemployment, sickness, infirmity or old age, are unable . to maintain themselves; or
(f) any existing law or any law made in pursuance of Article 253.
(4) The adequacy or otherwise of any compensation provided for by any such law as is referred to in this Article, or determined in pursuance thereof, shall not be called in question in any court."
12. Admittedly the C&W Department started construction of bridge over the private land without acquiring the land from the private persons (respondents). So the respondents filed objections but of no response, whereafter the respondents filed Constitutional Petition bearing No. 85 of 2006. This court vide order dated 23rd May, 2006 directed the official respondents to settle the matter within four weeks. The respondents (applicants) claim compensation for utilized land measuring 6262 square feet at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per square feet and for landlocked compensation measuring 3540 square feet at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per square feet and cost for earth filling i.e. Rs. 17,11,000/-, total amount of compensation so awarded under three different heads Rs. 82,68,540/-. The respondents in trial produced property dealers, survey officer who conducted the survey of the land, whereas in rebuttal the appellants did not record statement on oath in order to rebut the contention of the respondents. Admittedly neither the application nor the reply can be considered evidence without appearing by the parties in court, verified the contents thereof, meaning thereby that the appellants have not confirmed the contents of their reply. The respondents from the very outset contended that the utilized land was commercial and the EDO (Revenue) has considered the objection pertaining to acquired land in Ex: A/13, wherein it was stated as under: "Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and after long and lengthy discussion with particular reference to the location, shape, size of the land and trend of the people mentioning least rate in the instrument of land transactions, it is considered fair to offer/fix compensation at the rate of Rs.
800/- per square feet for the land measuring 6262 square feet came under the alignment of Construction of New Bridge adjacent to the old existing Bridge and Widening/Improvement of Brewery Road Extending for Golimar Chowk to Newly Constructed Bridge. In addition to above, 15% compulsory acquisition charges as admissible' under subsection (2) of Section 23, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), is also allowed to be included in the compensation. Thus this has further increased the rate of compensation to Rs. 920/- per square feet.
In additional to above, an amount of Rs. 796,500/- is also considered fair and offered as compensation on account of devaluation of the affected landlocked area measuring 3540 square feet and to have maximum 29-feet wide approach from Brewery Road at the rate of Rs. 225/- per square. Beside, the cost of earth filling amount to Rs. I7,11,000/- assessed by the C&W Department is also found genuine and the same is approved and awarded in favour of the affected land owners.
In the light of the above mentioned facts of the case I, Mehmood Tariq, as Executive District Officer (Revenue)I Collector, Quetta District, do hereby pass an Award giving compensation of the land amounting to Rs. 57,61,040/- at the rate of Rs. 920/- per square feet including 15% compulsory acquisition charges, for an area measuring 6262 square feet of land, came under the alignment of Construction of New Bridge adjacent to the old existing Bridge and Widening/ Improvement of Brewery Road Extending from Golimar Chowk to Newly Constructed Bridge and Rs.
7,96,500/- on account of devaluation and to have an access/ approach from Brewery Road to the affected/ landlocked area measuring 3540 square feet at the rate of Rs. 225/- per square feet. In addition to above an amount of Rs. 17,11,000/- is also awarded in favour of the affected land owners on account of cost of earth filling. The total amount of compensation so awarded under three different Heads aggregate to Rs. 82,68,540/- (Rupees Eight Million Two Ilundred sixty Eight thousand Jive hundred and forty only), in favour of the affected land owners as per mentioned in the schedule appended below."
13. The trial court out of the pleading of the parties framed as many as seven issues, wherein issue No. 6 is Whether acquisition land is situated in commercial area of the locality? The respondents produced evidence which clearly states that the utilized land was commercial. The appellant No. 3 has not mentioned anywhere in the Award that the acquired land was considered either as commercial or non-commercial land. RW-2 admitted that the land is commercial property. The appellants have admitted that the acquired land is adjacent to petrol pump and Hotel, Bank, Women University are situated in surrounding of the acquired property. AW-7 has produced the record of EDO (Revenue) Quetta as Ex: A/7 to Ex: A/21, by which EDO (R) Quetta made inquiry regarding valuation of the property. All documents show that: The official rate of the commercial property were Rs. 2000/- per square feet while the private rate were Rs. 3000/-per square feet.
As for the non-commercial land the rates were in between Rs. 600/- per square feet to Rs. 800/- per square feet.
As per circumstances of this case when the RW-2 who is representative of EDO as well as AW-7 who also produced the record which was provided to Executive District Officer (Revenue) regarding valuation of property itself show that the property in question is commercial and its rate in between Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3500/-then how could the rate, fixed as Rs. 800/-.
14. Section 23 of the Act lay down criteria that the "market value" of the land at the date of the publication of the notifications under Section 4 of the Act would be the amount of compensation.
The "market value" has not been defined in the Act. However, expression of market value has been judicially construed by the High Courts and Apex Court. In PLD 1960 (WP) (Lahore 469) market value is the practical method of the prudent man laid down in section 3 of the Evidence Act to examine the price which a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for purchase of the acquired land.
This view was further affirmed in case Din Muhammad v. General Manager, Communication and others PLD 1978 Lahore 1135 as under: "In determining the quantum of fair compensation, the main criterion is the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction."
In cases Province of Punjab v. Sher Muhammad PLD 1983 Lahore 578, Abdul Wahab v. The Deputy Commissioner 1986 MLD 381 and Ministry of Defence Government of Pakistan Rawalpindi v. Malik Muhammad Aslam 1978 SCMR 5 similar view has been taken.
15. The Honorable Court while elaborating the market value in case Murad Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector Peshawar 1999 SCMR 1647 held: "x) While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the "past sales" should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determined by examining (if necessary as Court-witness) local property dealers or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. In appropriate cases there should be no compunction even relying upon the oral testimony with respect to market value of the property intended to be acquired, because even while deciding cases involving question of life and death, the Courts rely on oral testimony alone and do not insist on the production of documentary evidence. The credibility of such witnesses would, however, have to be kept in mind and it would be for the Court in each case to determine the weight to be attached to their testimony. It would be useful and even necessary, to examine such witnesses while determining the market prices of the land in question, because of the prevalent tendency that in order to save money on the purchases of stamp papers and to avoid the imposition of heavy gain tax levied on sale of property, people declare or show a much smaller amount as the price of the land purchased by them than the price actually paid. The "Previous sales" of the land, cannot, therefore, be always taken to be an accurate measure for the determining the price of land intended to be acquired."
16. For determining compensation the court has to consider various factors including nature, location, market value, willingness of seller and purchaser, oneyear market value is not an absolute yardstick for assessm ent of compensation. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Land Acquisition Collector v. Mst. Iqbal Begum PLD 2010 SC 719. It was held: ".........Various factors have to be taken into consideration i.e. the size and shape of the land, the locality and its situation, the tenure of property, the user, its potential value, and the rise or depression in the value of the land in the locality and even in its near vicinity. In our view real, proper and potential value, keeping in view all the relevant factors have been determined and it is unexceptionable. It is well settled by now that "to determine compensation the Court must ascertain the value on the date of notification, considering various factors including nature and location of acquired land and sale price of adjoining lands. In assessing market value of land, its location, potentiality and price evidenced by transactions of similar land at the time of notification are factors which should be kept in view. One year's average of sales taking place before publication of notification under section 4 of similar land is merely one of the modes of ascertaining market value and is not an absolute yardstick for assessment of compensation.
Moreover, status of acquired land, its potentialities and its likelihood of development and improvement would be necessary factors for determining rate of compensation. "(Water and Sanitation Authority v. Niaz Muhammad PLD 1992 Quetta 75, Pakistan Buremah Shell Ltd. v. Prov. of N.-W.F.P. PLC 1993 SCMR 1700, Land Acquisition Officer, Badin District v. Altaf Hussain Shah 1994 CLC 160, Government of Sindh v. Shakir Ali Jafi 1996, SCMR 1361). We are not impressed by the contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellants that the determination of compensation should be based merely on the "past sales" for the reason that the potentiality of land cannot be determined without examining its future prospects and therefore, compensation cannot be based merely on the basis of "past sales". In this regard, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following authorities:-- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Abdur Rashid (1996 CLC 1193), West Pak. WAPDA v. Hiran Begun (1972 SCMR 138), Islamic University, Bahawalpur v. Khadiin Hussain (1990 MLD 2158) and Government of Pakistan Rawalpindi and another v. Malik Muhammad Aslam and 5 others (1978 SCMR 5)."
17. The record transpires that the respondents have received the compensation amount of Rs.
77,68,068/-under protest, while the trial court accepted the application of the respondents and enhanced the rate of compensation for utilized land at the rate of Rs. 3000/-per square feet and 15% compulsory acquisition charges and landlocked at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per square feet. As per Balochistan Amendment in Section 28 of the Act, the land owners are also entitled for 15% additional amount on the utilized land. It would be relevant to reproduce Balochistan Amendment Act XIII of 1985: "28. Additional Compensation.--In addition to the compensation fixed on the basis of market value as prevailing on the date of notification under Section 4, an additional amount of fifteen per cent per annum of the compensation so fixed shall be paid from the date of notification under section 4 of the date of payment of compensation. 7 For the above discussion the appeal is dismissed. The trial court has rightly assessed the value of the land which calls no interference by this court. However, the respondents arc also entitled for 15% additional compensation per annum from the date when they received amount under protest i.e. 25.9.2007 on the utilized land. In respect of the utilized land the respondents have received an amount of Rs. 7768068/- out of total amount Rs. 21603900/- and remaining amount of Rs.1,38,35832/- plus 15% per annum i.e. 2075374x12=24904497 (total amount 1,38,35832+24904497=387,40,329/-) is yet to be paid to the respondents in respect of the utilized land within the mandate of Section 28 of the Balochistan Amendment Act XIII of 1985. The respondents had received an amount of Rs. 796,500/- in respect of. landlocked area, as such they are entitled for the remaining amount of Rs. 62,83500/-. In this way total amount of (387,40,329+62,83500-= 45,023829/-) is to be paid to the respondents (owners). The appellants are directed to make payment of Rs. 387,40,329/- in respect of utilized land and Rs. 62,83500/- in respect of landlocked area. With above modification the judgment and decree of the trial court is upheld. Amended decree sheet be prepared in above terms.