' This appeal calls in question the judgment of the learned Second Additional District Judge, Nawabshah dated 26-9-1982 setting aside the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer and Collector South Region, WAPDA, Hyderabad dated 27-4-1976 and awarding compensation to the respondents for their acquired land at the rate of Rs,4 per sq. Ft. Together with emergency charges of 15% under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and 6% interest payable from 19-2-1974 the date on which the possession of the land in question was taken from the respondents. Futher compensation at the rate of Rs,135 and Rs,2,000 was also awarded to the respondents for trees and a Katcha house standing on the land respectively.
2. The facts pertinent for the resolution of the controversy are that Survey Nos.369/1 and 2 and Survey Nos.370/1 to 6 in Deh Kazi Ahmad Taluka Sakrand District Nawabshah occupying an area of 12.15 acres were acquired by the Sindh Government for WAPDA for construction of a Grid Station at Kazi Ahmed. Thereafter, after compliance of all the legal formalities the learned Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs,58,082.29 to the respondents. It is pertinent to point out that compensation for the acquired land was awarded to the respondents at the rate of Rs,3,500 per acre and Rs,135 and Rs,2,000 respectively for the trees standing on the land and the Katcha house reference to which has been made earlier in this judgment. Apart from the said compensation an amount of Rs,6,096.82 was additionally awarded under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act together with interest at the rate of 6% with effect from 19-2-1974 as has been pointed out earlier.
3. Objections were filed on behalf of the respondents according to whom the suit land was situated near the National Highway and the Town of Kazi Ahmed was fast developing and the suit land could be sold as sikni land by the respondents. Compensation was accordingly claimed at the rate of Rs,4 per sq. Ft. As is evident from the award, the learned Land Acquisition Officer, although, was impressed by the said factors but since the respondents had failed to establish that the land in question was got converted by them into sikni land he fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs,3,500 per acre and gave his award accordingly.
5. It may be pointed out that thereafter at the instance of the respondents the matter was referred by the learned Land Acquisition Officer for determiation of the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Second Additional District Judge while dealing with the matter has set aside the award as pointed out earlier.
6. Before the learned Additional Judge the respondents examined P.Ws. Subhan Ali Ex.57, Muhammad Sharif Ex.70, Muhammad Nawaz Ex.71 and Shafi Muhammad, their general attorney Ex.78 whereas the appellants examined Syed Tahir Hussain, the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Ex.38. It is pertinent to point out that so far as the potential value of the land as claimed by the respondents was concerned, their evidence on the point went unrebutted. In fact, there was no controversy over the point that the place where the land in question was situated was fast developing and other lands in the vicinity of the land in question were being converted into Sikni lands and sold at a much higher value. It would be pertinent to refer to the following observations made by the learned Additional District Judge in this regard :-- "It is thus proved through the unchallenged evidence of the applicants and admitted facts by the other side that the situation and the location of the suit land is such that it could be converted into Sikni land. The Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned in his award at page 9, From the ocular evidence of the owners, they intended to get the land converted into Sikni but they have failed to produce any documentary proof to that effect". In this Court also the evidence of the witnesses of the applicants is such that if the land had not been acquired then it would have been converted into Sikni and sold as Sikni Plots. The case of the applicants that the town of Kazi Ahmed is rapidly developing towards the suit land and the other Survey Nos. Like 303 to 305 and 309 which are very close to the suit land, having been sold as Sikni plots, is not without force and gets corroboration from the admitted facts. The suit land, being in very close vicinity of the Government hostel, Irrigation Bungalow, Kazi Ahmed Railway Station, Police Station, Cotton Ginning Factory, Colonies constructed over different survey Nos. Brick-kilns and being on the brink of National Highway has the qualities and amenities of being a Sikni
7. The learned Judge finally came to a conclusion that since there was no obstacle in the way of the respondents to get the land converted into a Sikni one and being conscious of the potential value of the land he held that the compensation awarded in favour of the respondents was most inadequate. Consequently, on the basis of the evidence produced before the learned Judge by the parties he came to a conclusion that the respondents were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs,4 per sq. Foot. As has been pointed out earlier.
8. Before this Court the first contention of Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan was that no notice had been served upon WAPDA for whom the land in question had been acquired as was required by section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 20 provides as follows:-- "20. Service of notice:-.-The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely:-
(a) the applicant;
(b) persons interested in the objection, except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and
(c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of compensation, the Collector and the Department of Government Local Authority or Company as the case may be, for which land is being acquired."
' Reliance was placed by. The learned counsel on the case of Muhammad Abdul Muid Khan, etc. v.
The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector and WAPDA (1987 CLC 542) wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that notice to the Department of the Government or Local Authority for whose benefit the land was required has to be in addition to the notice to the Collector and such notice being compulsory under the law any proceedings held without such notice would be vitiated.
9. Be that as it may, but a perusal of the record of the case shows that in fact notice had been given to WAPDA who were even represented before the learned Court by their counsel namely Mr. Ali Muhammad Balouch. The judgment of the learned Second Additional District Judge also shows that the same was passed after hearing the said learned counsel. In view of such factual position the objection raised by Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan appears to be completely without any substance and the same is, therefore, not accepted.
10. The second ground urged by Mr. Abdul Hameed Khan was that the respondents had failed to produce any evidence before the learned Land Acquisition Officer, and hence they could not be permitted to improve their case before the learned Additional District Judge. It was further argued in the alternative that according to their own case, the respondents were not entitled to claim compensation beyond Rs,15,000 per acre which had been originally claimed by them before the learned Land Acquisition Officer.
11. It may be pointed out in this regard that the respondents after receiving notice from the learned Land Acquisition Officer under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act filed their claim before the learned Land Acquisition Officer which was based on the following factors:--
(1) The land is adjacent to City.
(2) It is nearer to the station.
(3) It is on the main road.
(4) It is adjacent to the Inspection Bungalow.
(5) It is adjacent to S.No,305 which was converted and sold as Sikni.
(6) It is nearer to Cinema House."
' It appears that the respondents' counsel, Mr. Rais Mushtaq Ahmed, did not examine any witness in support of their claim. The learned Land Acquisition Officer then considered the report from the Mukhtiarkar of the concerned area and a similar report received from the Forest Officer etc. And based his final conclusions thereon. No doubt, at para.15 of the Award it has been observed that Mr. Rais Mushtaq Ahmed, Counsel for the respondents had claimed Rs, 15,000 per acre as compensation for the land but apart from the said observations nothing has been placed on the record in support of the same. It is also pertinent to point out that when evidence was being led before the learned Additional District Judge neither the Land Acquisition Officer who gave the Award was examined as a witness nor any other evidence was led by the appellants in support of the said alleged statement. Even the attention of the respondents' witnesses was not drawn to the fact that their counsel had himself claimed compensation for the land in dispute at the rate of Rs, 15,000 per acre, barring the fact that Mr. Rais Mushtaq Ahmed was not examined as a witness before the learned Additional Judge by any of the parties. No doubt, the evidence adduced by the respondents before the learned Additional Judge went unrebutted, even the evidence recorded on behalf of the appellants themselves somewhat supported that recorded on behalf of the respondents.
12. It is pertinent to point out that the value of the land is to be calculated not on the basis of the value which the land carried at the relevant time but the Court has to take into consideration its potential value. This aspect of the matter appears to have been considered by the learned Additional Judge who also took into consideration the value of the other lands in the vicinity, etc. And then reached his final conclusions. Consequently, I am of the view that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is not open to exception.
13. In the result, I find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed and the Award given by the learned Second Additional District Judge is upheld.