For similarity of facts and points involved for determination this appeal and the connected other eleven appeals, R.FAs. Nos. 137 to 147 of 1988, and cross---objections filed by the respondents therein may be disposed of together. 606 kanals 6 marlas of land situate in the area of Maghiana Chak Katcha estate, tahsil and district Jhang, was compulsorily acquired by the Provincial Government for the construction of Khairwala main drain. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), indicating the Government's intention to acquire the land was issued on the 12th March, 1983 arid published in the official Gazette on the 13th April, 1983. The Government had taken over possession of the land on the 17th January, 1983. The Land Acquisition Collector evaluated the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 46,000 per acre. As the perusal of his award (copy Exh. 137) discloses he acted on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue to fix the said value. He does not seem to have applied his own mind or to have formulated his own independent judgment in matter of assessing the value of the land for the purpose of award of compensation to the land-owners who are respondents in the appeals.
2. Being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector the land-owners got referred the matter for determination of true amount of compensation to the Civil Court. With the exception of the respondent in the-present appeal, who asked for the fixation of compensation at the rate of Rs.
65,000 per acre, the respondents in the other appeals demanded compensation to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 60,000 per acre. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, seized with the trial of the references, assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.60,000 per acre which was to be paid to the respondents who were to get 15 per cent extra on account of compulsory acquisition allowance. The learned Judge awarded the respondents "compound interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the time of taking the possession until the amount is deposited in the Court or is paid to the respondents."
3. The appellants, the Province of the Punjab and the Land Acquisition Collector, besides disputing the correctness of the compensation awarded by the learned trial Judge have assailed the validity of his order directing payment of interest.
4. The respondents in all the appeals have filed cross-objections for enhancement of the amount of compensation given by the learned trial Court to the tune of Rs. 65,000 per acre.
5. The respondents led oral as well as documentary evidence to prove that the market value of the acquired land far exceeded the one at which the Collector had evaluated it. At the time of its acquisition the land in dispute was situate hardly at a distance of two furlongs from the municipal limits of Jhang and was being used for cultivation of vegetables. The documentary evidence having bearing on the issue of market value of the land in dispute produced by the respondents consists of copies of registered sale-deeds, Exhs. Pl, P3 and P 14 and of mutations, Exhs. P2 to P12.
The appellants did not adduce evidence to help the Court ascertain the market value of the land.
The sale-deed, whose copy is Exh.. Pl, executed on the 13th and registered on the 14th June, 1982, records sale of 10 kanals of land lying in village Maghiana Chak Katcha for Rs. 75,000. By means of the sale-deed, copy Exh. P3, 35 kanals and 8 marlas of land of village Maghiana Chak Katcha was sold for Rs. 3,60,000 on the 11th February, 1982; the sale-deed was registered on the 14th February, 1982. The third sale-deed, copy Exh. P14, witnesses the sale of 4 kanals of land of the same village for Rs. 40,000; the deed was executed on the 11th and registered on the 14th February, 1982. Price per acre of the land sold by means of the aforesaid three sale deeds is Rs. 60,000.00, 81,355.93 and 80,000, respectively.
6. The mutations (copies Exhs. P3, P8, P11 and P12) incorporating sales of lands which took place much after the publication of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act are not relevant and helpful to fix the market value of the land in dispute at the time of its acquisition.
7. The mutations (copies Exhs. P9 and P 10) contain entries of sales of 5 marlas and 13 marlas of lands for Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 7,000 respectively. These sales were finalized shortly before the issuance of notification under section 4. Price per acre of land on the basis of these sale's comes to Rs.
80,000 and 86,153.84.
8. The above analysis of .The evidence produced by the respondents establishes beyond doubt that the average price of land of village Maghiana Chak Katcha was in no case less than Rs. 60,000 per acre. The learned trial Judge, after going through the evidence, rightly fixed the value of the land at Rs. 60,000 per acre. The learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any defect in the finding of the learned Judge in this behalf. The same is confirmed.
9. As the respondents in the other appeals had themselves made demand of not more than Rs.
60,000 per acre of the land they cannot now claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre.
No doubt the respondent in the present appeal had put forth the demand at the rate of Rs. 65,000 per acre yet in order to attain uniformity of decision it would be in the interests of justice to leave him contented with getting compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000 per acre like the other owners.
The cross-objections in the circumstances are dismissed.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents had to concede that the order of the learned trial Judge directing payment of interest was not in conformity with law. The respondents could have been given interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount awarded by the Court which was in excess of the sum which the Collector had awarded as compensation.
Therefore, the order of the learned trial Judge awarding interest is modified to the extent that the respondents will be paid compound interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the excess amount of compensation (difference between the compensation ordered by the Court and the one awarded by the Collector) from the 17th January, 1983 (date of taking of possession of the land), to the date of payment of such excess into the Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
M.Y.H./P-85/L