' FA.O. is directed against the judgment dated 23-5-1984 delivered by Ch Fazal Karim, the then learned District Judge, Lahore, now the Honourable Judge of this Court, accepting an application under section 6, Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Properties (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, submitted by Mst. Hanifan Bano against the Province of Punjab, through the Secretary, Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore.
2. Hanifan Bano is owner of Property No,XIX-31-S-17, situated in the Bank Colony, Samanabad, Lahore. A school, in the name and style "Tanweer Model Girls Primary School" was being run in a portion of the building, consisting of four rooms, a store and a courtyard, alongwith all, the appurtenances. It was requisitioned by the Punjab Government vide order dated 16-6-1977. Prior to nationalisation of the school under M.L.R. No, 118, its management had got the premises on rent at the rate of Rs,400 per mensem. The same rent continued to be paid to the owner by the Education Department of the Government of Punjab. The owner applied, under section 6 of the 1956 Act, for assessm ent and enhancement of compensation for use and occupation of the property by the respondent, to the Tribunal, namely the District Judge, Lahore, but the move was strenuously resisted by the respondent. The Tribunal however determined the compensation as Rs,1,005 per month from the date of requisition of the property, by a judgment announced on 23-5-1984.
3. It is urged by the appellant, Province of Punjab, that the learned District Judge, Lahore has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has passed the impugned order in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. According to the appellant, it is a case of misreading of evidence and misapplication of law on the subject, and the order is therefore not sustainable. Learned counsel for the appellant, in the course of his arguments, has however, failed to point out any lacunae or pitfalls in the judgment of the learned District Judge and has also not been able to bring to the notice of this Court the agreement, if any, arrived at between the parties at the time of requisitioning of the property. Obviously the owner had no option, as the Government had the power to compulsorily requisition the property. Question of the owner agreeing or not agreeing to such an exercise hardly mattered. Evidently the owner had to accept, from the respondent, the rent earlier being paid to her by the management of the school. The mere fact (as is asserted by the appellant) that the respondent-owner had throughout been receiving or accepting Rs,400 as rate of compensation, or rent, would not disentitle the owner to make a claim to renewed assessment of compensation, as envisaged by section 3(3) of the Act. Acceptance of this rate of rent, over the years, would not debar the owner from agitating her right to have fair compensation assessed under the provisions of the Act. It is maintained by the appellant that the rent had been deposited in accordance with the assessm ent made by the Excise and Taxation Department. Nothing in that behalf however is available on record, as has rightly been pointed out by the learned lower forum.
As per evidence on record, the building was constructed in the year 1968, and the cost of construction was determined by the Local Commissioner, appointed by the learned District Judge, as Rs,82,620. Ever since 1968 the building having undergone decay, substantial depreciation was allowed by the Local Commissioner, fixing the depreciated value as Rs,65,267. The depreciation however has not been taken into account by the Tribunal, and rightly so, as the initial cost of construction of the building, that came into being after 14th August, 1947, had to be made the basis for determining the compensation, after deducting, however, taxes and insurance premium, if any.
Value of the property obviously included the value of the land underneath. The Tribunal has not liberally fixed the value of the land, although it is stated to be somewhere near Rs,30,000 to Rs,40,000 per Marla, the area being 4.3 Marlas. The relevant period to assess the value of the land being the one when the requisition was made, an average cost of land, then prevailing, was calculated as Rs, 15,000 per Marla. Compensation had to be determined at the rate of 8 to 10 per cent. of the cost of construction of the building, which in the opinion of the Tribunal included the cost of land as well. No evidence was led to the effect that the property was subject to payment of any taxes or insurance premium. The Tribunal fixed the value of the land roughly as Rs,50,000 and value of the structure as Rs,82,620, total being Rs,1,32,620.
4. By no stretch of imagination it may be asserted that rate of rent fixed 'or accepted as Rs,400 in the year 1977 will enure and will be subject to no change, although over these years there has been phenomenal rise in the prices of land and buildings. Even in 1977 Rs,400 was an insufficient rate of rent. Prior to that the same was being paid by the private school management, but manifestly it had to register an increase, with the passage of time. Learned lower Court has allowed increase in a miserly manner, without actually taking into account the alround increase in cost of living, as also in the price of the property. I do not think that the determination of the compensation made by the learned District Judge can be characterised as unfair or excessive, considered from any angle.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to fmd fault with the assessment in question, by bringing to the notice of this Court any worthwhile material. No case-law has been cited either, in support of his contentions by the learned counsel.
5. The appeal being without merit is hereby dismissed with costs.