' By Notification dated 24-4-1955, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) as amended by Act XXXVIII of 1923, portions of lands bearing Survey Nos. 190, 191, 195, 196, 326 and 327, measuring 27.38 acres situated at Deh Digh, Taluka and District Karachi, were acquired for trenching ground and graveyard for Digh Village Refugee Colony. This Notification was followed by another Notification dated 24-4-1955 under sections 6, 7 and 17 of the Act, declaring that the lands were urgently needed for the purpose stated above. Thereafter, by another Notification under section 9 of the Act claims were invited. Accordingly, the claimants submitted their claims for payment of compensation. The claimants claimed compensation for their land, at Rs. 5 per square yard. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi, the Acquiring Authority, by his award dated 17-2-1962 awarded compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 2,400 and Rs.
3,000 per acre for restricted and unrestricted lands respectively and further allowed statutory allowance of 15 per cent. As admissible under the Act, and interest at 6 per cent. Per annum from 12-10-1955, the date when possession of lands was taken.
2. Dissatisfied with the award of the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi, the claimants filed their objections to the same under section 18 of the Act and requested him to refer the question of compensation as provided therein to the High Court. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner has referred the question to this Court.
3. The parties have not led any oral evidence. The Advocate for the claimants has filed certified copies of for sale deeds of various lands sold in the same Deh between the years 1955-1958 (Exhs.
SA/1-4). He has also filed certified copies of two judgments of this Court in Civil Reference No. 52/68 (Exh. A/6) and No. 21/69 (Exh. A/5). These certified copies of the sale deeds and judgments were taken on record and exhibited with the consent of the learned Assistant Advocate General.
4. The learned Advocate for the claimants has relied upon the sales covered by the sale deeds, certified copies whereof have been produced by the claimants in support of his contention that the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner was not according to the market value of the lands acquired at the relevant time. He has also in support of his contention relied upon two judgments of this Court in Civil References Nos. 52/68 and 21/69.
5. Before I examine the question whether the compensation has been awarded according to the market value of the lands after taking into consideration all the relevant matters, I would like to state that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Karachi has not given the particulars and details of the instance on the basis of which he awarded compensation in the case under consideration at the rate of Rs. 2,400 per acre for the restricted tenure lands and Rs. 3,000 per acre for the unrestricted tenure lands. He has not mentioned survey number of the land on the basis of which he awarded the compensation in the present case. He has also not given the area of the land in the previous case, which, in some cases, may be a material consideration in assessing the market value of the land. Moreover, it is also not known whether the compensation at the aforesaid rate awarded in the previous case was accepted by the claimants or not and whether any reference was made to the Court in respect of the award. It is noteworthy that in the previous case relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner, the land was acquired on 17/18th September 1954, while in the present case lands were acquired on 24th April 1955.
6. In support of the claim that the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner is not according to the market value, the learned Advocate for the claimants has relied upon the following sales of lands in the same Deh:-
(a) The first sale is in respect of 9 acres and 0 ghuntas at the rate of Rs. 2 per square yard and is covered by conveyance deed dated 27-5-1955 (Exh, A/1). It is worth noting that in this case agreement to sell the land was executed on 31-3-1953 as is mentioned in the recital of the sale deed.
(b) The second sale is in respect of 7 acres and 30 ghuntas at the rate of Rs.
1.50 per square yard and is reflected by conveyance deed dated 25-2-1956 (Exh. A/2).
(c) The third sale is in respect of land measuring 9 acres and 20 ghuntas at the rate of Rs.
1.62 per square yard by conveyance deed dated 10-2-1958 (Exh. A/3).
(d) The fourth sale is in respect of land measuring 3821 square yards for Rs. 17,152 at the rate of about Rs.
4.50 per square yard by conveyance deed dated 24-6-1958 (Exh. A/4).
' The learned Advocate has also relied upon two judgments of this Court in Civil References Nos.
21/69 and 52/68. In Reference No. 21/69 the lands measuring 103 acres situated in Deh Digh were acquired on 11-12-1958 and the compensation was awarded by the Deputy Commissioner at Rs.
3,000 per acre for the land held or unrestricted tenure and Rs. 2,625 per acre for the land held on unrestricted tenure. But in the Reference the compensation was enhanced by this Court to Rs. 7,500 for the land held on unrestricted tenure and Rs. 5,625 for the land held on restricted tenure relying upon compensation award in respect of the land in earlier Reference No. 52/68. In Civil Reference No. 52/68 land measuring 608.38 situated in Deh Digh were acquired on 13-8-1957, and the Deputy Commissioner awarded compensation at Rs. 4,000 per acre for the land held on unrestricted tenure and Rs. 3,200 for land held on restricted tenure. However, in the Reference this Court, taking into consideration two sales of lands situated in the same Deh and covering areas of 2 acres and 9 acres of land and sold at the rate of Rs. 3 18 and Rs.
2.00 per square yard respectively, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 7,000 per acre for the land held on unrestricted tenure i.e. Rs.
1.40 per square yard.
7. The learned Assistant Advocate-General relying upon the compensation awarded in Civil Reference No. 52/68 suggested that Rs. 5,000 per acre would be fair amount of compensation reflecting the market value B of the lands in view of the fact that in that case compensation was awarded at Rs. 7,000 per acre but the same was in respect of land acquired on 13-8-57 while lands in the present case were acquired on 24-4-1955. He also urged that in Civil Reference No. 52/68 the land was acquired for construction of houses by the Housing Societies while in the instant case lands were acquired for trenching ground and graveyard and this factor is relevant in awarding compensation.
8. It is no more in dispute that the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner is inadequate and not according to the market value on the relevant date as the learned Assistant Advocate-General himself has suggested Rs. 5,000 per acre as the market value of the land acquired, relying upon the market value fixed in Reference No. 52/68. But in that case compensation was fixed at Rs. 7,000 per acre taking into consideration also the sales of land made in the year 1955, one of such sales was of 9 acres at Rs. 2 per square yard, which is presumably covered by the sale deed dated 27-5-1955 (Exh. A/1). In the instant case the material date is 24-4- 1955. Therefore, the sale by Exh. A/1 is nearest in point of time. But there is another sale on 25-2-1956 by registered sale deed (Exh. A/2) at Rs.
1.50 per square yard. It appears from the copies of the sale deeds produced before me that during the years 1953 to 1958, the price of land in Deb Digh was between Rs.
1.50 to Rs. 2 per square yard. Therefore, Rs.
1.50 per square yard could safely be treated as market value of the land on the material date and could form proper basis of compensation. When there is direct evidence of sale in the year 1955 at Rs. 2 and in the year 1956 at Rs.
1.50 per square yard no room is left to argue that because in the year 1958 compensation has been awarded at Rs. 7,000 per acre i.e. At about Rs.
1.40 per square yard, it should be less in respect of sales in the year 1955.
9. The other contention of the learned Assistant Advocate-General that the land has been acquired for trenching ground and graveyard and, therefore, compensation should be less, can be simply answered by pointing out that this is not the relevant consideration under the Land Acquisition Act.
Matters to be considered in determining compensation have been enumerated in section 23 of the Act, but this is not one of the matters mentioned therein. No distinction can be made in one public purpose and another public purpose in assessing market value of the land unless it was so provided by or under the Act or some other law. Public purpose remains public purpose for the assessm ent of market value whether land is acquired for constructing roads and dams, or trenching ground and graveyard. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of the learned Assistant Advocate-General and reject the same.
10. In the result, I allow compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.
1.50 per square yard i.e. Rs. 7,260 per acre lands held on an unrestricted tenure and at Rs. 5,445 for lands held on restricted tenure, holding the same to be the market value on the relevant date. The claimants shall also have statutory allowance of 15 per cent. And interest at 6 per cent, per annum on the amount of the compensation.
11. It may be mentioned that the Advocate for the claimants also made a grievance that the Deputy Commissioner awarded interest at 6 per cent. Per annum though the claimants are entitled to 8 per cent, compound interest under the law. But the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment)
Act, 1969, whereby Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was amended inter alia, providing enhancement of rate of interest from 6 per cent. To 8 per cent. And changing its nature from simple to compound.
Was repealed by the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) (Repeal) Ordinance, 1971. It is provided in the repealing Ordinance that the repealed Act shall be deemed never to have been enacted. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 6 per cent. Simple interest and no more.
12. The Reference is disposed of in above terms.