This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 3-7-1972 passed by Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Malik, Land Acquisition Judge, Mianwali.
2. The facts giving rise to this first appeal in brief are that the land measuring 8 kanals 6 marlas out of field No.454/4/2, 454/5/2/1 and 454/6/1/2, situated in village Khola, Thesil Mianwali owned by respondent was acquired for construction of 2-R Minor, taking its head from Kundian Distributary.
The Collector assessed the compensation amount of this land at Rs.1,074 through award dated 18- 8-1967 a copy of which has been produced in evidence as Ext. R/19. The respondent questioned the legality of the proceedings and the award on the ground that no notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. This objection was repelled by the Land Acquisition Authorities on the ground that a notification under section 4 relating to acquisition of a total area of 1,200 acres of land in village Khola generally was issued and amended notification under section 6 was also issued on 24-7-1967 before pronouncement of award on 17-8-1967 therefore, no fresh award was required to be delivered. The respondent then moved an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference for challenging not only the correctness of compensation but also the mode of acquisition. The reference was made by the Collector to the Court. The appellant No. 1 contested the claim of the respondent by filing written-statement. All the allegations were controverted. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. All of them need not be reproduced here since the findings on issue No.10 only have been challenged.
Issue No.10 reads as under:- Issue No.10. "Whether the acquired land has not been properly assessed for the purposes of compensation? If so, what should have been the correct assessment and compensation? O.P."
The respondent examined seven witnesses including himself whereas the appellants examined two witnesses. The respondent produced documentary evidence consisting of Ext. A1 to A10 as against which the appellants produced 20 documents from Ext. R1 to R/2. After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court held that the land in dispute was irrigated land and not Barani as was being alleged by the appellants. It was held that the market price of irrigated land in the year 1967 when notification under section 6 (Ext.R4) was published was Rs.400 per kanal. On the basis of this rate it was found that the compensation of the land of the respondent was Rs.3,320. The claim of the respondent regarding compensation on account of severance allowance, damage to his standing crops or interest to be awarded on the compensation was rejected by holding that the same was not proved.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the market price of the land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act should have been made the basis for determining the compensation of the land in dispute and not the date of publication of the notification, under section 6 of the Act. The argument on face looked attractive because that was the settled law but on proper analysis in the facts and circumstances of this case it is likely to fail.
From the notification issued under section 4 of the Act which has been produced in evidence as Ext.
R1, it is manifest that no particulars of land such as Khasra numbers etc. Intended to be acquired was given whereas generally it was stated that land measuring 1,200 acres was being acquired from village in question mentioned therein. Having realized, that this notification was not sufficient compliance of law and could not be constituted a proper notification for acquisition, an amended notification under section 6 was issued on 24-7-1967 Ext. R4 in which this defect was removed. This was done before the award dated 18-8-1967 was pronounced. The learned trial Court under issue No.5 found that the defect stood removed which did not adversely affect the proceedings and the award pronounced by the Collector. It was further held that for the purpose of determining the market price it will be the date on which this amended notification Ext. R4 under section 6 was issued and published which shall be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the appellants could not succeed in persuading me that the findings and the approach of the learned trial Court suffer from any illegality. No act or omission of the department could prejudice the right of the respondent as owner of the land to claim compensation on the basis of determination of market price with reference to the date on which notification as required by law was issued for its acquisition. Since particulars of land with Khasra numbers were given in the amended notification under section 6 therefore the learned trial Court was right in assuming that legally the land shall be deemed to have been acquired in the year 1967 when the said notification was published therefore the market price prevalent at that time was justifiably made the basis for determining compensation of the land.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants then argued that the learned trial Court assessed the compensation at unreasonably high rates. I have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties. Copies of mutations Exs. A6 and A7 show that irrigated land of Mouza Khola during the year 1967 was at least 400 per kanal. The land covered by the other two mutations Ext. A4 and A5 is either totally or partially Barani therefore they were rightly kept out of consideration for assessing the compensation for the land in dispute On examining the record I am fully satisfied that the assessm ent of compensation of land in dispute at Rs.3,320 does not suffer from any misreading or illegality which compensation is perfectly valid and has been made on the basis of material produced in evidence.
The appeal fails which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
H.B.T./W-67/L