' ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.--This appeal against the decision of the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Minawali, dated the 18th October, 1979, enhancing the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the trees standing on and forming part of the land of respondents 1 to 4 situate in the area of village Khola, Tehsil and District Mianwali, which had been acquired by the Provincial Government for the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, appellant 2, for the purpose of construction of atomic energy plant, arises out of the following circumstances.
Notification of the Government's intention to acquire the land under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on the 10th December, 1973. The Government took over possession of the land after evicting respondents 1 to 4 and others on the 28th September, 1974.
The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award touching compensation payable to the interested persons in respect of standing crops and trees on the 18th September, 1975. On the 9th January, 1976, he issued corrigendum to the award substantially reducing the amount of compensation payable in regard to the trees.
2. On the application of respondents 1 to 4 to the Collector, the matter regarding adequacy of compensation was referred to the Court of the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Mianwali. The number and nature of the trees and the rate of compensation payable in respect thereof formed the crux of the dispute demanding adjudication. It may be mentioned that while formulating the award the Collector accepted the figures regarding number of trees supplied to him by the Extra- Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mianwali, through his Memorandum No.1884, dated the 10th March, 1975 (copy Exh.P.9), and confirmed by his subsequent Memorandum No.7399 of the 12th August, 1975, (copy Exh.P.10). After about four months of announcement of the award the Collector received from the Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mianwali (the author of memorandum whose copy in Exh.P.10), the Memorandum No.333, dated the 8th January, 1976 (copy Exh.P.11), intimating that memorandum of the 10th March, 1975 (Exh.P.9), contained some typographical and clerical mistakes and asking for making necessary correction in the compensation record. In the memorandum of the 8th January, 1976, the number of trees shown was much less than the number given in the earlier memoranda. The Collector proceeded to reduce the amount of compensation on the basis of the new figures of the number of trees contained in the last mentioned memorandum and issued corrigendum on the 9th January, 1976, to the award. The result was that the amount of compensation in respect of the trees was almost halved.
3. The learned Land Acquisition Judge preferred to accept the number of trees as given by the Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture through its memorandum of the 10th March, 1975 (copy Exh.P.9), and assessed the compensation at the rate supplied by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sargodha Division, vide his memorandum of the 16th September, 1974 (copy Exh.P.17). He did not take into consideration the list of rates given in the memorandum (copy Exh. P.16) sent by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sargodha Division, on the 17th September, 1974. The appellants have impugned the correctness of the compensation adjudged by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in excess of the one determined by the Lund Acquisition Collector through its award amended by its corrigendum.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants made grievance of the fact that the appellants' evidence had been illegally closed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge on the 30th July, 1979. A perusal of the record of the proceedings of the case discloses that the appellants had been given a number of opportunities, at one time on their representation that their counsel was busy elsewhere, to produce evidence and lastly on the 7th July, 1979, when the case had been adjourned to the 30th July, 1979, for receiving their evidence, it had been made clear to them that no further opportunity would be granted. They produced two witnesses on the 30th July, 1984, and no other witness was present for examination that day. In the circumstances the order of the learned Land Acquisition Judge shutting the evidence cannot be described to be unjustified. It may be worth noticing that the entire record relating to acquisition proceedings culminating in the award of the Land Acquisition Collector had been sent by the Collector to and was available in the Court of the learned Land Acquisition Judge and it was not very difficult for the appellants to bring any portion of that record into evidence by production of its certified copies. When questioned as to why the appellants wanted to produce additional evidence the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants wanted to examine the Patwari for proving the entries of the Khasra Girdawari register as those entries, according to the learned counsel, did not carry the presumption of truth.
The evidence of the Patwari in respect of the entries of the, Khasra Girdawari register would have been inadmissible because such entries could have been proved by the production of certified copies of the Khasra Girdawari. Again he submitted that the appellants wanted to produce the Deputy Director of Agriculture to get from him reasons for his revised estimate of the number and value of the trees. As will be seen, such examination, in view of Exhs. P.10, P.11, P.16, and P.17, would have been otiose. In the circumstances the appellants can have no legitimate grievance against the closure of their evidence.
5. The learned counsel argued that since no reference had been made for impugning the validity of the corrigendum issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, respondents 1 to 4 could not object to it. Actually the corrigendum forms part of the award and the appellants are relying upon it.
Respondents 1 to 4 were assailing the correctness of the award in which the corrigendum had been merged and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in considering the legality and effect of the corrigendum by the learned Land Acquisition Judge.
6. The Land Acquisition Collector, after announcing the award, became functus officio and was not competent to review or change it. His power to effect any amendment was restricted to, as provided by section 12(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, making correction of any clerical or arthmetical mistake in the award arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. He could not go to the extent of drastically reducing the amount of compensation on the basis of the information received from the Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture vide memorandum, Exh.P.11, four months after the announcement of the award. His act of issuing corrigendum was wholly illegal. Consequently the amendment made in the award is not sustainable.
7. In order to appreciate the process of reasoning adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector to revise the amount of compensation upwards it may be advantageous to go through the correspondence that passed between the concerned Government officers and the Land Acquisition Collector. The Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mianwali, visited the spot on the 8th March, 1975, counted the number of fruit bearing trees standing on the land in dispute in the presence of both the contesting parties and intimated the result of counting to the Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali, vide his memorandum No.1884, dated the 10th March, 1975 (copy Exh.P.9), whose text is produced below: - "Memorandum: According to your ' spot on 8-3-1975 and counted the number of trees and plants in presence of both these parties.
Number of disputed fruit bearing trees/plants are given below:- {{TABLE}} S . No. Name of trees Quantity
1. Grafting bear 8 F.B.
2. Lasura 8 "
3. Fig 11 "
4. Banana 98 "
5. Dates 12 "
6. Mangoes 72 Sucker 177 F.B.
7. Malta 6 "
8. Mango seeding 119 "
9. Rose 40 "
10. Gillow 200 "
11. Grapes 82 "
' These are in addition to the list already published by the Acquisition Department.
' Sd/-Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mianwali." {{TABLE}} ' When asked again by the Land Acquisition Collector regarding count of trees fieldwise the Extra- Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mianwali, vide his memorandum No.7399, dated the 12th August, 1975, confirmed the correctness of his earlier report (contained in Exh.P.9) as follows:- "Memorandum: It is hereby informed that I have submitted my inspection report at the spot in the presence of both the parties on 8-3-1975, vide this office letter No.1884 dated 10-3-1975. It is further requested that this office is unable to give the Khasra Nos. Etc. As the matter is not related to this department. Anyhow the report mentioned above dated 8-3-1975, is ndoubtedly correct. The fruit bearing trees were indicated to me on the spot by the both parties and were counted each and every fruit bearing trees in their presence and they were fully satisfied.
' Sd/-Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mianwali."
8. It is not understood how and why the Extra-Assis tant Director of Agriculture sent to the Land Acquisition Collector memorandum No.333 on the 8th January, 1976 (copy Exh.P.11), which is to the following effect,- "Memorandum: I understand that this office Memorandum No.1884 dated 10-3-1975 contains certain typical/clerical mistakes which have been discussed with you. The correct number is given below with the request that the necessary corrections in the compensation record may be made under intimation to this office: - {{TABLE}} S.No. Name of Trees/plants Quantity Grafting beer 8 F.B.
Losura 8 F.B.
Fig 11 F . B .
4.
5.
Banana 9 F.B.
Dates 2 F.B.
72 Sucker
6. Mangoes 7 F. B .
7. Malta 6 F.B.
8. Mango seedling 119 Plants less than two years ago
9. Rose 40
10. Gillow 200
11. Grapes 8 F.B.
This is an addition to the list already published by the Acquisition Department.
' Sd/-Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mianwali." {{TABLE}}
9. The learned Land Acquisition Judge accepted the figures relating to number of trees in the Memorandum No. 1884, dated the 10th March, 1975, in preference to those contained in the memorandum of the 8th January, 1976, for the simple reason that the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture had in unequivocal words furnished the earlier figures after inspecting the spot in the presence of the parties and had reconfirmed them by his subsequent memorandum of the 12th August, 1975, and that different figures given by him subsequently long after the announcement of the award in the memorandum of the 8th January, 1976, could not be taken to be true. The decision of the learned Land Acquisition Judge is rationally and logically correct. It is difficult to accept that he came to know after holding discussion, with the Land Acquisition Collector after the lapse of considerable time of the announcement of the award that some typographical and clerical error had occurred in the matter of description of trees given in his earlier memorandum which he had confirmed in no ambiguous words by his subsequent memorandum. It is inexplicable as to how and why the Land Acquisition Collector started discussing the matters which had been concluded by his award and how and why he undertook the job of revising the award detriment to the interest of respondents 1 to 4 which under the law he could not do.
10. On the move of the Land Acquisition Collector, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sargodha Division, inspected the spot and E prepared assessment report of compensation for fruit trees which he sent to the former vide Memorandum No.12921, dated the 16th September, 1974 (copy Exh.P.17), which runs as under:- "Memorandum: The requisite assessment report for compensation of fruit plants is endorsed as under for the acquired area. The report contains the fruit value only. {{TABLE}} S.No. Name of Approxi- Years for Rate per Total fruit mate plant yield per year/ plant which the compensation is given Mds. Cost.
Mango seedling 2 mds. 20 years Rs. 50 Rs.2,000 Mango grafted 2 mds. 20 years Rs.100 Rs.4,000 Malta 2 mds. 10 years Rs. 40 Rs. 800
4. Kinow
5. Lemon
6. Guava
7. Sweet lime
8. Pommi granate
9. Fig
10. Jaman
11. Shatoot
12. Ber grafted
13. Date
14. Banana
15. False
16. Litchi
17. Papaya
18. Chieku
19. Loqat
20. Crabeapple
21. Grapes 2 mds. 10 years Rs. 50 Rs.1,000 md. 10 years Rs.100 Rs.0,500 1 md. 15 years Rs. 40 Rs.0,600 1 md. 10 years Rs. 60 Rs.0,600 1 md. 10 yers Rs. 80 Rs.0,800 20 seers 10 years Rs. 80 Rs.0,400 2 mds. 20 years Rs. 60 Rs.2,400 1 md. 20 years Rs. 40 Rs.0,400 21 mds 10 years Rs. 40 Rs.1,000 1 md. 20 years Rs. 40 Rs.0,800 1 md. 2 years Rs.160 Rs.0,160 md. 5 years Rs. 60 Rs.00,75 md. 5 years Rs.200 Rs.0,500 md. 1 year Rs. 80 Rs.00,40 1 md. 5 years Rs.100 Rs.0,250 md. 5 years Rs. 60 Rs.0,150 md. 5 years Rs. 80 Rs.0,200 1 md. 5 years Rs. 80 Rs.0,100 Nursery plants
1. Khatti seedling Nil.
2. Citrus all varieties Nil.
3. Mango seedling
4. Grafted Mango nursery plant
5. Date sucker Guava nursery plant Rs.25 per hundred plants. Rs.2 per plant Rs.25 per hundred plants. Rs.7 per plant Rs.4 per plant. Re.1 per plant.
Newly-planted garden {{TABLE}} ' The compensation would be made on the basis of Rs.10 as expenditure per plant per year plus ten basic purchase price of the fruit plant from the nursery.
' Sd/-Assistant Horticultural Officer for Deputy Director of Agriculture Sargodha Division, Sargodha.
' Endt. No.______ dated camp Mianwali the 666/74.
' Copy forwarded to Director of Agriculture (Extension) Punjab Lahore, for favour of information.
' Sd/-Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sargodha Division, Sargodha (camp Mianwali).
' Note: Rates above-mentioned are after the inspection of the spot of each owner of the gardens."
' Surprisingly the next day he sent another memorandum (copy Exh.P.16) which does not bear any number, mentioning reduced amount of compensation.. The relevant text of the memorandum is reproduced below: - "After actual inspection and examination of the fruit trees/plants on 16-9-1974, at site the requisite assessm ent report for the compensation of each fruit tree/plant is given below. The report contains the fruit value only. {{TABLE}} S.No. Name of Approxi- Years for Rate per Total fruit mate which the md. Cost. Plant yield compen- per year/ sation is plant given Khurshid Muhammad s/o Haji Mehr Zaman
1. Guava 1 md. 10 years Rs. 40 Rs. 400
2. Malta 1 md. 5 years Rs. 40 Rs. 200
3. Jaman 2 mds. 5 years Rs. 60 Rs. 600
4. Fig md. 5 years Rs. 80 Rs. 200
5. Lemon md. 5 years Rs.100 Rs. 250
6. Kinnow 1 md. 5 years Rs. 50 Rs. 250
7. Annar 1 md. 5 years Rs. 80 Rs. 400
8. Shahtoot 1 md. 10 years Rs. 40 Rs. 400
9. Grapes 1 md. 5 years Rs. 80 Rs. 100
10. Banana # md. 2 years Rs.160 Rs. 160
11. Mango Seedling2 mds. 15 yeas Rs. 50 Rs.1,500
12. Dates 1 md. 10 years Rs.
40. Rs. 400
13. Date Suckers Rs.4 per plant Rs. 4
14. Mango plant seedling upto Rs.3 per plant Rs. 3 4 years." {{TABLE}} ' He did not give any reason as to why he had sent the revised assessment of compensation and whether his previous assessm ent report for compensation contained in the memorandum of the 16th September, 1974, should be ignored. The learned Land Acquisition Judge has taken into consideration the rates of compensation given in the memorandum of the 16th September, 1974 (Exh. P.17) and not the rates cited in the subsequent assessment report (copy Exh.P.16) for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector thought that the memorandum of the 17th September, 1974 (copy Exh.P.16), automatically superseded the memorandum of the 16th September, 1974 (copy Exh. P.17), and, therefore, he worked out compensation on the basis of the rates set out in the memorandum of the 17th September, 1974. The learned Land Acquisition Judge was not favourably impressed by the arguments of the Land Acquisition Collector and found no justification in the Deputy Director of Agriculture's revision of the rates of compensation without any rhyme or reason just after twenty- four hours. The learned Judge thought that the Deputy Director had acted under some coercion to give the new rates of compensation. No exception can be taken to the view formulated by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. Even otherwise the increase in the amount of compensation ordered by the learned Land Acquisition Judge on the basis of the figures contained in the memorandum of the Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture dated the 10th March, 1975 (copy Exh.P.9), and the rates supplied by the Deputy Director of Agriculture through his memorandum of the 16th September, 1974 (copy Exh.P.17) is stated by the parties to be correct. However, the learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the observations of the Deputy Director of Agriculture contained in the memoranda, Exhs. P.16 and 17, that the compensation would be made on the basis of Rs.10 as expenditure per plant per year plus Rs.10 basic purchase price of the fruit plant from the nursery have escaped the notice of the learned Land Acquisition Judge while working out the amount of compensation. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 to 4 has no objection to the deduction being made from the amount of compensation on the basis of Rs.10 as expenditure per plant per year as indicated by the Deputy Director of Agriculture. Of course the basic purchase price of the plant at the rate of Rs.10 will have to be added to and expenditure at the rate of Rs.10 per plant per year will have to be deducted from the increase in the amount of compensation ordered by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. Working out this way the deduction to be made comes to Rs.61,260. Resultantly the aforesaid increase in compensation is reduced by Rs.61,260.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled to the award of 15 per cent of G the market value of the trees in consideration of compulsory acquisition charges is not at all maintainable because trees are included in the expression land as defined by the Land Acquisition Act.
12. With the above-mentioned reduction in the increase in compensation this appeal is dismissed with costs.