' This writ petition has been filed to assail the orders of the respondents in respect of award of compensation on acquisition of petitioners' lands under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing)
Act, 1973, for the Housing Scheme in village Sahoki Malian.
2. The Collector in his award on 19th April, 1978 admitted the position that the land acquired for Scheme is situated on the Chichoki Malian Link Road alongwith which factories are already working. He further held that the area could be considered as commercial area since on both sides of the land vis-a-vis north and south factories were working. According to him only four acres of land was cultivated but it was situated on the back side of the acquired area. Therefore, taking the area to be commercial sites, he held that it could not be lesser in price than the area situated in municipal limits though there was no Municipal Committee. He accordingly fixed the price at Rs, 4,465 per acre for the entire area.
3. The notification under section 4 was published on 22nd November, 1976 whereafter other notifications were issued. The land owners appeared before the Collector on 21st December, 1976.
The possession of the land was taken on 21st July, 1977 after giving 24 hours' notice to the persons concerned.
4. A perusal of the record shows that on 1st December, 1976 the Land Acquisition Collector wrote to Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura to intimate the market value of land on the basis of last two years' average sale price of the land similarly situated and put to similar use. This was replied to by the Deputy Commissioner on 22nd December, 1976 stating that the average sale price on the basis of last two year's average sale price as reported by the Tehsildar Sheikhupura came to Rs, 3,821.68 per acre. The present market value was however reported to be Rs, 25,000 per acre. On 9th March, 1977 the Collector again wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura stating that in his memorandum dated 1st December, 1976 it was clearly written that the value may be intimated on two years average sale price of the land similarly situated and put to similar use. According to the Land Acquisition Collector, there was a huge difference between the average sale price and the market value reported by the Deputy Commissioner. He was, therefore, required to reconcile the position to enable him to proceed further in the matter.The matter was pursued though many reminders. Ultimately on 21st March, 1978 the Deputy Commissioner replied vide his memorandum No, DRA/1929, dated 21st March, 1978. It was intimated that according to the re-verification average price per acre came to Rs, 4,464.48 and the market value at Rs, 10,000 per acre on the front side and Rs, 8,000 per acre on the back side. Thereafter, the Tehsildar Sheikhupura on 17th November, 1979 again worked out the two years average sale price from 1st January, 1976 to 31st December, 1977 a certified copy whereof is Annexure 'E' to the writ petition. According to the average worked out by him, the per acre average price of the land came to Rs, 15,760. It would thus be seen that in respect of the same land there were three reports submitted and each time one was different for the other. However, it is also noteworthy that the clarification sought by the Land Acquisition Collector from the Deputy Commissioner asking for specific information regarding land similarly situated and put to similar use remained unattended throughout. In these circumstances, for reasons best known to the Land Acquisition Collector without applying his own independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case or attending to the location or situation of each plot and the use to which it was put or was likely to be put, he arbitrarily fixed the price at Rs, 4,465 per acre for the entire area. In so doing, the location of the potential use to which it could be put was also ignored in the case of each plot. The order of the Collector, therefore, fell short of the legal requirements and in doing so he also excluded from consideration the material and the matters which were before him and he did not apply his own independent conscious mind to the matter.
The facts narrated by him on the contrary show that the land was situated at a place where factories were already working and there was commercial area on both sides of the land. His order, therefore, cannot be held to be a lawful order and is liable to be struck down.
5. The Commissioner in appeal allowed relief partially with respect to only a few Khasra numbers.
He accordingly allowed the maximum available in respect of all these Khasra numbers on the basis that rest of the land was situated at the back.
6. After hearing the learned counsel from both the sides, I have come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental defect in the two orders. There is a basic requirement of section 9(1) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 which says that the market value of the land is to be determined on the basis of two years' average sale price of land similarly situated and put to similar use preceding the date of notification under section 4(1) provided that the maximum rate of compensation so determined by the Collector shall not exceed Rs, 20,000 per acre. In view of this absolute requirement of law, the compensation awarding authorities are bound to apply their own independent mind to each piece and parcel of land from the point of view of situation and to use to which it was being put vis-a-vis in relation to other land in the adjoining area whose two years' average sale price was being made the basis for working out the market value. In essence what has to be worked out is the market value.
7. A perusal of the order of the Collector shows that he was completely oblivious of this legal requirement. The learned appellate authority/Commissioner, Lahore Division contented himself by affording the relief partially in respect of few Khasra numbers but failed to apply his conscious mind with respect to the situation and user to which the land was being put in respect of which he was to decide the question of compensation. The two functionaries below in my view, therefore, have not proceeded on correct legal principles nor observed the proper legal requirements in order to arrive at a just decision to work out the market value of the land in respect of which compensation was to be paid. The two estimates of the average price were themselves inconsistent and the third one was the report regarding average obtained during the pendency of the appeal by the Commissioner himself. This further leads support to the confusion that prevailed and the manner in which the whole matter was being processed. Under the circumstances, I feel that this is a case in which the matter has not been decided in accordance with law and the correct legal requirements have also been overlooked and there is also no proper inquiry. I would, therefore, quash the impugned orders and remand the case to the Land Acquisition Collector for fresh determination in accordance with law to the extent of the land of the petitioners.
8. The same reasons will hold good in respect of Writ Petition No, 10713/80 which is directed against the same orders as in the above connected writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is also accepted. The impugned orders are set aside.
9. There will however be no order as to costs.
10. The above are the reasons recorded for the short orders dated 14th December, 1981 passed in the two writ petitions.