Land measuring 407 Kanals 8 Marlas situate in village Bhikeywal, Tehshil and District Lahore was acquired vide award dated 13-3-1975 for the purpose of "1600 Acres Scheme", formulated under section 24/28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. The Scheme was finally sanctioned in pursuance of section 41 of the Act, under notification dated 24-12-1970 published in the Punjab Gazette on 1-1-1971. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was decided by the President of the L.D.A. Tribunal, respondent No.4 herein, by his order dated 30-7-1987, under challenge in this writ petition.
2. It is discernible from the record that an area measuring 159 Kanals 12 Marlas was included in the first category and assessed by the Collector at the rate of Rs.275 per Marla. Out of this land, the Tribunal enhanced the market. Value of 10 Kanals, to Rs.353 per Marla. But the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs.260 per Marla, for the land of second category, was not interfered with. However, the Tribunal treated alike the land under depression and 'Ghairmumkin Rasta' falling in 3rd and 4th category, enhanced the assessed value thereof. And fixed the same at the rate of Rs.150 per Marla. In addition to this, the petitioners were also allowed damages under section 48-A of the Act at the rate of Rs.20 per cent and were further awarded compound interest at the rate of Rs.18 per cent per annum, on the enhanced amount, from the date of compensation to the date of payment.
3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. The petitioners' case is that the Authorities below failed to determine compensation according to law and with a degree of fairness; that the land was acquired for residential purpose, it was located within the limits of Lahore Municipal Corporation, surrounded by colonies and thus its market value should have been assessed keeping in view its potential value which at the relevant time was Rs.25,000 per Kanal. It has also been submitted that under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners were entitled to 15 per cent on the market value, in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition, but thise amount was also denied to them.
4. For acquisition of the land for a development scheme sanction under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, by virtue of clause 10 of the Schedule thereof, section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been amended and for the purpose of clause first of subsection (i) of section 23, it has been provided:- (a)the market value of the land shall be the market value according to the use to which the land was put at the date with reference to which the market value is to be determined under that clause: - (b)---------------------------------------------------.
(c)---------------------------------------------------..
(d)---------------------------------------------------..
(e)---------------------------------------------------.
(f)------------------------------------------------------ The available record shows that the land was being largely used for the agricultural purposes.
Nevertheless the Land Acquisition Collector ignored this use and assessed the market value of the land on the basis of 5 years' average of the sale transaction taking place in the locality, during the period of 5 years prior to notification dated 29-5-1965 issued under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act. As already stated the Tribunal for good reasons chose to enhance the compensation in terms of its order dated, 30-7-1987. There is thus no merit in the submission that while assessing the market value, the Tribunal below failed to follow the law. In any case, assessm ent of market price of the land is a question of fact. Reference in this connection may be made to West Pakistan WAPDA v. Mst. Hiran Begum 1972 SCMR 138. Such a finding of fact is and exception to review ability.
5. The petitioners' claim for payment of 15 per cent on the market value, rested on subsection (2) of section 23, is, well grounded and finds support from the Supreme Court judgment reported as Province of West Pakistan etc. v. M. Salim Ullah and others PLD 1966 SC. 547. No law to the contrary has been cited before me on behalf of B the respondents.
For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is accepted and the Tribunal's order to the extent of not awarding to the petitioners 15 per cent of the market value, is, declared to be without lawful authority and it is held, that the petitioners are entitled to compensation in terms of section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The parties are left to bear their own costs.