' MIR HAZAR KHAN 1 KHOSOJ.,--- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-11-1992 passed by the Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the award of Arbitrator was modified and value of the land in question was determined to Rs,1,275,per Marla on 19-7-1972, i,e, the date 'of possession.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the year 1966 District Magistrate, Sialkot, ordered the Market Committee to shift its fruit and vegetable market out of the town. The Market Committee purchased land at the rate of Rs,800 per Marla. The market was constructed. In the year 1972 it was felt necessary that the market be extended. The District Magistrate, Sialkot, in purported exercise of power under section 19 of the Defense of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971 and Rule 121 of the Rules framed thereunder requisitioned and acquired nine Kanals of the adjoining lands of the appellants/their predecessors. He offered Rs,800 per Marla as compensation in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% interest with effect from the date of taking over. The owners resisted the price and claimed higher compensation at the rate of Rs,1,500 per Marla, premium 25% and interest much more than 8%. The owners also requested for reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. Arbitrator was appointed, where both the parties placed their claims. The Arbitrator formulated following five issues:--
(i) What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition?
(ii) Was the land acquired for, public purpose?
(iii) Are the owners entitled to 25% over and above the market value instead of 15%?
(iv) Are the ownes entitled to further compensation on account of delay in payment?
(v) To what total compensation are the owners entitled?
3. The parties produced documents in favor of their claims. Vide the award dated 24-12-1977, the Arbitrator fixed the rate of the land at Rs,1,150 per Marla plus 15% premium and interest 8% till pertinent is made. The appellants filed appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, who, vide its judgment dated 11-11-1992, fixed the price of the land at the relevant time to be Rs,1,275 per Marla plus 15% premium and 8% interest. This order is under challenge before this Court.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land was acquired in the year 1972, Arbitrator was appointed in 1975 and he gave award on 24-12-1977, after a period of five years, The appeal filed before the High Court was decided in 1992. Thus, value of the land has increased, whereas the value of the money has diminished. The appellants as such be awarded higher rate of compensation, premium and compound interest. Besides, he contended that the land under dispute was used for market purpose, hence its price should' have been higher than the ordinary sales. The learned counsel further submitted that the High Court has not taken into consideration the principle laid down in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while passing the impugned judgment. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the case reported in 1985 SCM R 767 (N.-W.F.P. Through Collector, Abbottabad Land Acquisition and others v.
Haji Ali Asghar Khan and others), where the Court has observed "it is an admitted position that the average market value of the sales in village Mirpur, during the relevant period, works out at Rs,23,000 per Kanal. We, therefore, think that even on the criteria laid down by the learned Senior Civil Judge and upheld by the High Court for working out the rate at which compensation should be allowed and also taking into account the fact that the notification of the acquisition was issued in 1978 and the award made some two years later and there was an upward trend in the prices of the land during the period, the value of the land for purposes of payment of compensation should, in our opinion, be fixed at Rs,25,000 per Kanal for the land acquired in this case". The case of the appellants falls within the four corners of the above said case.
5. In such view of the fact we are inclined to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs,1,275 to Rs,1,500 per Marla. The learned counsel had also contended that the appellants in addition to the market value of the land are entitled to 25% of such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition charges instead of 15% as the acquisition was made for a company. This contention is based on section 18(2) and does not seem to be correct as the appellants have failed to show that Market Committee is a company. Thus, the judgment and decree of the High Court in other respects shall remain the same.
6. It was brought to our notice that the authorities had not paid the owners the difference of compensation in accordance with the directions of the Lahore High Court. The grievance appears to be genuine. The respondents are directed to arrange for payment of difference of compensation at the rate of Rs,1,500 per Marla along with other charges without further delay.