' I propose to dispose of two Civil Appeals (No.93 of 1970) M.Ikram Hasan Khan v. Province of West Pakistan and others and (No.F.A.O 101 of 1970) Province of West Pakistan and others v. M.Ikram Hassan Khan, which are against one order, dated 28-2-1970, passed by Qazi Dastgir Ahmad, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, in his capacity as arbitrator under section 6 of the Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 (West Pakistan Act VII of 1956) assessing Rs.35,000 as compensation inclusive of all taxes etc. for property Bungalow No.98-A, Upper Mall, Lahore, requisitioned by the Provincial Government on 20-6-1961 under the abovenbted Act.
2. Property in question was transferred to M.Ikram Hasan Khan on 7-7-1960 on the basis of transfer price assessed by the Settlement Department. Building at the time of transfer was in occupation of West Pakistan Rangers. As the Rangers, did not pay the rent to the transferee, he presented an eviction petition against the occupants before the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent. The ejectment was ordered on 27-4-1961 directing the occupants to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the transferee-landlord. Instead of complying with the direction of Rent Controller, respondent-Government invoked its powers under section 3 of Act VII of 1956 and requisitioned the property on 20-6-1961. Department delayed the asessment of the compensation. Consequently, the owner filed a Writ Petition No.620 of 1968 in the Lahore High Court.
It was during the pendency of the Writ Petition that he was informed that compenstation at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month has been assessed by the Department in respect of the requisitioned property. The owner disputed the adequacy of the assessed compensation, and applied under section 6 of Act VII of 1956 for determination of the fair compensation before the learned District Judge, Lahore with powers of an Arbitrator under the above-stated Act. Reference consequently came to be dealt with by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-
(1) What is the fair compensation per month of the property in dispute?
(2) Whether Rs.2,000 p.m. is not the fair compensation of the property in dispute?
(3) Relief.
3. After recording evidence and hearing parties the learned Additional District Judge, vide order, dated 28-2-1970 raised the amount of compensation to Rs.3,500 p.m. inclusive of repair charges and taxes with effect from 1-10-1965. There was no dispute in regard to the period preceding 1-10- 1965 between the parties. Both the parties, the owner as well as the Government, have challenged the order of learned Additional District Judge in two appeals. Appeals were admitted in the year 1970 and have now come up for hearing before me in presence of learned counsel for the parties.Mr.M.Ahmad Hassan Khan, Advocate, represented the owner whereas Mr.S.M.Zubair, learned Assistant Advocate-General appeared on behalf of Government.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Ikram Hassan Khan, contended that the learned Additional Disrict Judge quite contrary to the evidence oral as well as documentary has assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,500 p.m. inclusive of the costs of necessary repairs and taxes etc. He stated that the evidence led by the owner whose property had been requisitioned, had not been effectively rebutted by Government in regard to the assessment of compensation of requisitioned property. It was pointed out that apart from the oral statements, the report of a Committee headed by the Home Secretary, Government of Punjab, itself, in its report Exh.P.W.3/1 had recommended rent at the rate of Rs.4,000 p.m. inclusive of taxes and repairs for the period commencing October, 1965 todate.
No justification existed, therefore, for learned Additional District Judge in the absence of effective rebuttal to ignore the assessm ent contained in this report made practically by the Government itself.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, however, in reply, asserted that the owner himself had agreed to accept Rs.2,000 p.m. as compensation for the requisitioned property and in view of the agreement so arrived at; it was no longer open to him to agitate the matter before the arbitrator and claim enhanced compensation. He objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the arbitrator on the ground that after a negotiated settlement/agreement had been arrived at between the owner and the Government under section 6, no dispute was left to be agitated before the arbitrator. He referred to section 6, sub-clauses (a) and (b) to support him. In the presence of a negotiated agreement fixing the amount of compensation the abitrator, as he put it, had no jurisdiction. He further contended that the report Exh.P.W.3/1 though on record yet was not entitled to any evidentiary value, reason being, that it has not been proved in accordance with law. He, however, admitted that at the time when the document was tendered in evidence, -no objection was raised in regard to its mode of proof. Nonetheless, he insisted that despite no objection was raised, the document cannot be considered to be part of record and read in evidence. Learned Assistant Advocate-General also pointed out that when the owner himself was demanding Rs.2,000 p.m. for the property requisitioned by the Government, it was no longer open to him or for that matter, to the arbitrator to have assessed the compensation as Rs.3,500 p.m. The owner was debarred by his own conduct to claim enhanced compensation.
6. Admittedly, the requisitioned building sprawls over an area of land measuring 14 Kanals 15 Marlas and is situated on a most attractive point on the Upper Mall. It consists of more than 40 rooms with spacious lawns, servant quarters, annexe, canteen, washing Ghat and a tubewell.
Property was in possession of Rangers at the time it was transferred to the owner. Rent was not paid to him and so he sought the eviction of rangers before the Court of learned Rent Controller. An order of ejectment was passed but then the Government stepped in, invoked its powers under Act VII of 1956 and requisitioned the property. It is evident that, for several years, the Government did not fix the compensation payable to the owner. At last he invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking necessary relief. Then some amount was assessed of course, under section 6 of Act VII, first, an attempt has to be made for a negotiated agreement in regard to the compensation payable for the requisitioned property failing which the matter is placed before the arbitrator to determine the quantum of compensation. In this case, there was no evidence that there was any negotiated settlement between the owner and the requisitioning authority for the amount of compensation payable. The dispute in these circumstances was rightly placed before the arbitrator. The learned arbitrator, lightly dissatisfied with the oral evidence, has assessed the compensation at Rs.3,500 inclusive of charges for necessary repairs and taxes etc. No ground had been shown as to why the report of a Committee headed by senior Government officials had not been considered and given due weight by the learned Arbitrator. The Committee headed by Home Secretary was constituted for this purpose by the Home Secretary himself. After due deliberation and taking account of the nature of the property, the costs of the land and the construction raised thereon, in para. 7 of the report it recommended that the rent from the date of acquisition upto October, 1965, at Rs.2,000 plus 30% for repairs and taxes and thereafter at Rs.4,000 inclusive of repairs and taxes. This report was brought on record by the appellant without objection from the opposite side. No objection regarding mode of proof was offered at the relevant time. It is now too late to contend that the document has not been properly proved. It is not the case of the Government that the Committee was not constituted or that it did not make the report Exh.P.W.3/1.
When the property of a private owner is requisitioned under section 3 of Act VII of 1956, reasonable compensation for its use and occupation has to be paid by the requisitioning authority to compensate the deprive owner of the user of his property. In the case under consideration, the High Officials of the Government itself thought that Rs.4,000 was a reasonable compensation, though the owner's claim was a little higher. When such was the case, the arbitrator was not justified to scale down the amount of compensation to Rs.3,500 p.m. inclusive of certain charges.
He has not accorded the proper weight to this all important piece of evidence. I, therefore, accept the appeal filed by the owner (F.A.O No.93/70), set aside the order of learned arbitrator/ Additional District Judge and direct that the respondent shall now pay a compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000 p.m. inclusive of repairs and taxes to the owner from the month of October, 1965 till the date title remained vested in him. Respondent-Government will be entitled to adjust the amount already paid to the owner. Civil Appeal (F.A.O No.101/70) is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.