' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This regular first appeal arises out of a reference made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Faisalabad to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. On 21-3-1970 a notification was published by the Collector for the acquisition of 5 Acres, 3 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land situated in Square No,52 of Chak No,207/R.B. For the construction of a Microwave Station in Faisalabad. This notification was followed on 28-5-1971 by another notification under section 17(4) of the same Act. Subsequently, proceedings for the determination of compensations were initiated. On 28-4-1973 the Land Acquisition Collector made his award. He fixed the price of the land at Rs,1,00,000 per Acre. He further allowed a sum of Rs,15,000 per Acre on account of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The respondents were not satisfied with the amount of compensations assessed by the Collector and they moved the latter for making a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On 13-6-1973 the Collector allowed the application and made the sought for reference.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Senior Civil Judge framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the reference is within time ?
(2) Whether the reference is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners have not fulfilled the requirements of law ?
(3) Whether the reference is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(4) What should be the compensations of the land acquired? And
(5) Relief.
' The learned Senior Civil Judge held that the reference was within time. He also decided issues Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the respondents. On issue No,4 his finding was that the rate of compensations fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was on the low side. Accordingly, he raised it to Rs,1,15,933 per Acre. He further directed that the respondents should be given interest at the rate of 8$ on the unpaid amount from the date of acquisition. The decision of the learned Senior Civil Judge has been challenged in this appeal.
4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the application made by the respondents to the Collector for making reference before the Court was barred by time and as such there was no proper reference to the learned Senior Civil Judge. It is to be noticed that the objection of limitation was not taken by the Collector. Consequently, as ruled by the Supreme Court in Government of West Pakistan v. Asmat-un-Nisa PLD 1983 SC 109 the Court could not go into this question. We must, therefore, repel this objection taken on behalf of the appellants.
5. The main question for consideration is whether the learned Senior Civil Judge was right in interfering with the amount of compensation as determined by the Collector. It is to be noticed that the land in dispue was included within the municipal limits of Faisalabad in 1948. A municipal road passes through it. Mohalla Negehbanpura which is spread over two squares adjoins the acquired land. Close to this Mohalla is another locality known as Mohalla Chibban. Mohalla Tariqabad is at a distance of half a square from it. Even around the land in dispute constructions were being made at several places. Thus, although at the time of acquisition the land in dispute was being used for agricultural purposes it had become a potential building area. In coming to this conclusion we are supported by certain admissions made by Aziz Din Qanungo (R.W.1) who was examined by the appellants as their only witness. He stated that the land in dispute was assessed to property-tax before its. Acquisition and that it had attained urban character. Respondent No,1 Umar Daraz claimed that he had got a housing plan sanctioned for the land in dispute but he did not support his assertion by any documentary evidence. However, that may be, it will not be fair to treat the land in dispute as just agricultural land.
6. In respect of their respective both sides produced statements of average prices. The one upon which the appellants rely is Exh.R.2. According to this document the average price in the area was Rs,23,702.40 per Acre. But then Aziz Din (R.W.1) who worked out the average price admitted that the mutations which formed the basis of the statement (Exh. R.2) related to areas far away from the acquired land. For obvious reason the average price so worked out can hardly furnish a reliable guide for determining the price of the said land.
7. On the other hand the statement (Exh.A.1) produced by the respondent is based upon sales made in Square No,51 which is contiguous to the land in dispute. These sales took place between 16-8-1969 and 15-4-1970 which period is fairly near to the date of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. We should therefore, think that these provide a good indication of the prices of land in the area. An examination of these sales indicates that the price of land in Square No,51 varied between Rs,64,000 to Rs,7,90,588.24 per Acre. We have also before us copy of registered. Sale-deed (Exh.A.2) which relates to a sale affecting land in the said square. It was executed in May, 1965. By this deed 5 Marlas of land was sold for Rs,5,000. This would give a rate of Rs,1,60,000 per acre. It is not contended on behalf of the appellants that the prices of land in the municipal limits of Faisalabad have depreciated since 1965.
8. Considering the price of land in the contiguous square as well as the urban character of the land in dispute we are unable to hold that the learned Senior Civil Judge erred in assessing the compensation at Rs, 3.1.15,933 per Acre.
9. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that a part of the land acquired which measured one Kanal and 15 Marlas fell under the municipal road and that they should not have been made to pay compensations to the respondents for this area also. It may be mentioned that there is no evidence on record about the circumstances under which this road was built or if the area covered by the road was acquired by the Municipal Corporation. The notification of acquisition covered this area as well. Instead of raising this appeal it would be more appropriate for the appellants to take this matter with the Municipal Corporation Faisalabad for in the total absence of any evidence no finding can be recorded with regard to the ownership of the area falling under the road.
10. The learned Senior Civil Judge has awarded interest on the excess amount of compensations as worked out by him from the date of acquisition. This is not in accordance with the provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act which reads as follows.
"If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay compound interest on such excess at the rates of eight per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court.
' Accordingly we would direct that the interest on the excess amount shall be payable from the date on which the Collector took over possession of the land in dispute till the excess amount is deposited in Court.
11. But for the above modification this appeal is hereby with costs.