' MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J.---This judgment will also dispose of R.FAs. Nos. 95 to 103 of 1989 and R.FAs. Nos.
107 to 116 of 1989 filed by the respondents in which common questions of law and facts have arisen in all of them.
2. This appeal is directed against the Award dated 4-5-1989 made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, through which the compensation for the land of the appellant acquired by the respondents has been assessed at Rs,4,000 per acre. R.FAs. Nos. 95 to 103 of 1989 have been filed by the owners of the land for enhancement of the compensation whereas R.FAs. Nos. 107 to 116 have been filed by the respondents for setting aside the Award of the learned trial Court and restoration of amount of compensation assessed in the award delivered by the Collector.
3. Land belonging to appellants in Appeals Nos. 95 to 103 of 1989 was acquired through Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 13-11-1968. The Collector delivered the award on 25- 9-1969 according to which the compensation of the land was assessed at Rs,2,500 per Acre. The landowners did not accept the award and made an application to the Collector for making reference under section 18 of the Act. The Collector made reference to the learned trial Court. The case was contested by the respondents. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the suit land has been undervalued for the purposes of compensation to the petitioners? If so, what is the correct value? OPP.
(2) Whether the measurement of the acquired land had incorrectly been made? If so, what is the correct measurement? OPP.
(3) Whether the award of damages for the standing crops of the acquired land is inadequate? If so, what should be the correct quantum of damages? OPP.
(4) Whether the claimants sustained damages on account of severance of land? If so, to what extent and with what effect? OPP.
(5) Whether the acquisition of land had injuriously effected the income of the claimant? If so, what effect? OPP.
(6) Whether the apportionment made by the land Acquisition Collector is wrong? If so, what is the correct apportionment? OPP.
(7) Relief.
4. In support of their case the land-owners examined Patwari as A.W. 1 according to whose evidence this land was situated at G.T. Road and was a Nehri Nul Chahi. One of the owners of the land appeared as A.W. 2, who stated that the land was Nehri Nul Chahi and the same was connected with Pacca Road, and that at the relevant time there was standing crops of wheat. He stated that the market value of the land at the relevant time was not less than Rs,10,000 per Acre.
He also claimed that had installed three Tube wells at the land the value of each of which was Rs,40,000. He produced documents Al to A18 to prove that land measuring 199 Acres for which compensation was not granted to him because no mutation had been sanctioned in the revenue papers should have been awarded to him. It may be observed here that the learned trial Court has held that compensation for this land shall be paid to the appellant so there is no controversy about the entitlement of the appellant regarding the receipt of compensation of this land also.
5. No evidence was led by the respondents. The learned trial Court assessed the compensation at Rs,4,000 per Acre and Rs, 10,000 was awarded for each Tube well. Likewise an amount of Rs,10,000 each for three buildings was also awarded to the appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants maintained;
(a) That the compensation of the land should have been awarded at the rate of Rs,16,000 per Acre as that was the market price of the land at the relevant time.
(b) That the compensation assessed for three buildings at Rs,10,000 each is insufficient.
(c) That compensation for each tube well should have been assessed at Rs,41,000 as that was the amount which was required for installation of tube well in 1968 when the land was acquired.
(d) That no compensation was awarded for the wheat crops standing on the land when it was acquired.
(e) That no compensation was awarded for rendering the factory of the appellant as unworkable as the same was closed due to acquisition of the disputed land.
7. We have considered the evidence produced by the appellant which consists of only statement of Patwari and his own statement. The Patwari has only stated that the land in dispute was Nehri and Nul Chahi. The appellant stated that the land was connected with Pacca Road and there was wheat crops standing when it was acquired. He stated that the market price of the land was Rs,10,000 per Acre. Unfortunately no evidence was produced in the form of either mutations of sales sanctioned for the sale of other lands in the area at the relevant time or the copies of sale-deeds to corroborate the evidence of the appellant that the value of the land was Rs,10,000 per acre. He also did not lead any other evidence that any loss was caused to the business of the appellant on account of closing down the factory clue to acquisition of land as argued by learned counsel for the appellant. No evidence was also produced that compensation assessed for the three buildings at Rs,10,000 each and for each tube well at Rs,10,000 was not adequate. We are not persuaded to accept the plea of the appellant that the value of Tube wells which were installed in the year 1955 should have been assessed at equal to the costs which installation of a new tube well in 1968 would have attracted. Likewise, no evidence was also produced as to the quantum of compensation for the standing wheat crops. It has been brought to our notice that for the similar land acquired through the same Notification this Court in R.F.As. No,45 of 1977 to R.FA. 56 of 1977 assessed the compensation at Rs,6,500 per acre. There is no reason to decline. Compensation at the said rate to the appellant in this case who cannot be discriminated. We therefore hold that the appellants are entitled to compensation of the land at the rate of Rs,6,500 per acre and the award made by the learned trial Court is liable to be modified accordingly. The R.F.A. No,107 of 1989 to R.FA.
No,116 of 1989 filed by the respondents/ Government praying for setting aside the award of the learned trial Court and restoration of that of the Collector for the foregoing reasons have no merits and dismissed.
8. R.F.As. Nos. 94 to 103 of 1989 for the foregoing reasons are partly accepted. The appellants shall be paid compensation of the land at the rate of Rs,6,500 per acre. They shall also be paid compound interest at the rate of 8% from the date of taking over of possession upto the date of deposit of compensation as determined by the trial Court. They shall also be paid compound interest at the rate of 8% on the difference of the amount as determined in these appeals from the date of taking over of the possession upto the date of deposit of the said amount. The said appellants shall also be paid costs of the appeal.