' This is a Regular First Appeal from the decision dated 12-11-1962 of the District Judge, Lahore.
2. The appellant was the owner of Plots Nos. 4 and 5 in Block D. (I) of Gulberg Extension-III in Lahore.
On 15-7-1960 a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the acquisition of the said plots for the purpose of setting up a telephone exchange. This was following by a notification under section 6 of the same Act on 22-10-1960.
' Thereafter the. Land Acquisition Collector initiated proceedings for determining the amount of compensation. The appellant claimed that the value of the land should be determined at the rate of Rs, 6,000 per kanal. On the other hand respondent No, 1 for whose benefit the plots had been acquired pleaded that the price of the land did not exceed more than Rs, 1300 per kanal. There was also a dispute between the parties with regard to the exact area of the plots. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 21-1-1961, where under the value of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs, 4,000 per kanal. The appellant was not satisfied with the award and upon his prayer the Collector made reference to the District. Judge, Lahore under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act..
3. On the pleadings of the parties the learned District Judge framed the following issues :
(1) What is the exact area of the land acquired by the Government ?
(2) What is the fair compensation of the land in dispute ?
(3) Relief.
' After considering the evidence of the parties the learned District Judge held that the area of the plots in question was 13 kanals 7 marlas and 48 sq. Ft. Under issue No, 2 he worked out the amount of compensation, -holding that the price of the plot was Rs, 5,200 per kanal. From this decision the appellant has come in appeal, to this Court.
4. The main question for consideration in this appeal is as to what was the market value of the plots on 15-7-1960 when the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. In recording his finding that the price should be calculated at the rate of Rs, 5,200 per kanal the learned District Judge was entirely influenced by a notice (Exh. R/1) which the appellant had sent on 29-9-1960 to respondent No, I. In this notice the appellant himself had given the market rate to be Rs, 5,250 per kanal. It is to be observed that when the appellant appeared in the witness-box he was not confronted with this notice ; he was also not given an opportunity to explain why he demanded a price higher than the one he himself had mentioned in the notice. This being so, I do not think that the learned District Judge was justified in holding that the appellant was bound by the price which he had recited in the notice.
5. To prove that the market price of the plots was much higher than what had been found by the Land Acquisition Collector the appellant examined Muhammad Sadiq (P. W. 1) and Akbar All (P. W.
2). Muhammad Sadiq (P. W. 1) produced copies of three sale deeds, namely Exhs. P. 1, P. 2 and P.
3. He also stated that respondent No, 1 had acquired another plot, too in 1961 and that in that case the compensations were assessed at the rate of Rs, 5,200 per kanal. Akbar Ali (P. W. 2) had acted as a broker in the sales evidenced by Exhs. P. 1 and P.
3. I have examined these three sale deeds. The copy Exh. P. 1 shows that on 25-10-1960 one Maj. Abdur Rehman sold Plot No, 39, measuring 4 kanals, for Rs, 24,000 that is at the rate of Rs, 6,000 per kanal. The copy .Exh. P. 2 shows that on 24-8-1960 the appellant himself sold Plot No, 34, measuring 8 kanals, to Begum Khurshid Zaman for Rs, 40,000, that is, at the rate of Rs, 5,000 per kanal. The copy Exh. P. 3 shows that on 26-5-1960 the appellant sold yet another plot, bearing No, 37 measuring 4 kanals, to one Abdur-Raoof for Rs, 21,000, that is, at the rate of Rs, 5,250, per kanal.
6. Exh. P. 5 is a plan giving the location of the various plots falling in the block D. 1 of Gulberg Scheme No, III. This plan shows that the plot sold by Maj. Abdur Rehman was situated at some distance and on a different street from the plots acquired by respondent No, 1 in this appeal. On the other hand the plots sold by the appellant to Begum Khurshid Zaman and Abdul Raoof are contiguous the plots acquired by respondent No, I, even though facing a different street. There is nothing in the evidence which may indicate that the plots purchased by Begum Khurshid Zaman and Abdur Raoof were in any way less favourably situated then the plots in dispute here. I am, therefore, of the opinion that prices paid by Begum Khurshid Zaman and Abdur Raoof to the appellant furnish a more accurate yardstick in determining the market price of the plots in dispute than the price received by Maj. Abdur Rehman for the sale of his plot.
7. In determining the quantum of fair compensation the main criterion is the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction. Here I find two instances of private sales made by the appellant himself at about the time when the plots in question were acquired by respondent No,
1. It was not his case that these transactions were attended by special circumstances. For one plot the appellant received consideration at the rate of Rs, 5,000 per kanal and for the other sale he received consideration at the rate of Rs, 5,250 per kanal. Both the transactions involved land similarly situated as the plots in dispute. In the circumstances the learned District Judge was quite justified in assessing the compensation payable to the appellant at the rate of Rs, 5,200 per kanal.
8. The other finding of the learned District Judge, that is, with regard to the exact area of the plots in question, has not 'been challenged before me. There is, however, one minor matter which requires consideration. It appears from the statement of Zafar Ali Khan (P. W. 3), a clerk of the Lahore Improvement Trust, that after the acquisition the appellant was made to pay a sum of Rs, 721 by the Trust by way of development charges. The appellant is entitled to claim reimbursement from respondent NO. 1 in respect of this amount. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No, 1 has not disputed his liability to pay this amount. I, therefore, direct that this o amount should be added to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant. However, this amount will not bear any interest for the reason that the development charges were not wrongly recovered from the appellant by an agency over which respondent No, I had no control.
9. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act the appellant was entitled to claim interest on the amount of compensations for the period intervening between his dispossession and the deposit of the compensations and that the decision of the learned District Judge was completely silent in this regard. I find merit in this contention. I modify the order of the learned District Judge by directing that the appellant shall be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the time he was dispossessed till the deposit of the compensations in Court.
10. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The appellant shall have his proportionate costs of this appeal.