' This appeal is directed against an order passed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by Mr. Muzaffar Hussain on 20th July 1973, raising the compensation for the respondent's land from a sum of Rs, 1,950 to 4,500 per kanal. He further held that the respondent is entitled to 15 per cent.
Compulsory acquisition charges on the enhanced amount and interest at the rate of 6.1-2 per cent from the date of Collector's award, i,e, 14-9-1963.
2. On the 20th of May 1963, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of 867 kanals 15 marlas of area for constructing a link road from Ferozepur Road to the site of the Beco Factory. The area of the respondent in Khasra No, 535 (3 kanals 11 marlas) in village Pindi Rajputan, Tehsil and District Lahore, was included within this area. A notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on the 15th of June 1963. On the 9th of August 1963, the Land Acquisition Collector, P. W. D., B & R Branch, Central Region, Lahore, gave an award. He distributed the land into four Categories "A, B, C & D" in accordance with its value. The most valuable land was considered to be of Categories 'A' and 'B'. The land of the respondent in the above khasra number was treated to be the land belonging to Category 'A'. Although the Collector refused to rely upon the five years average and further found that in 1962 and 1963 the average price of the land sold in Blocks 'A' and 'B' ranged from Rs, 1,800 to Rs, 3,000 per kanal; while assessing the value of different lands he assessed the value of 3 Khasra numbers in the same category (a) Rs, 2,100 per kanal, of one Khasra number in the same category @ Rs, 2,000 per kanal, and of four khasra numbers including Khasra No, 535 at Rs, 1,950 per kanal. Some other area in the same category was valued at Rs, 2,000 per kanal. This was contrary to the principle that that value should be fixed which is favourable to the owner of the property. He has not also given the basis for distinguishing between the property in the same category and another. Although respondent claimed Rs, 5,000 per kanal as the value of his land but he allowed him only a sum of Rs, 1,950 per kanal. It is for these reasons that aggrieved against the award of the Collector the respondent filed an application under section 18, of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Administrative Civil Judge after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there were no pits in khasra number in dispute, that Beco Factory was situated at a distance of one furlong from that khasra, that Khyber Tobacco Company, Ittefaq Company and Crushing Limited were situated near the Beco Company, that the above khasra number was situated in Factory area and that it was within the Lahore Township Scheme. He also presumed the fourfold or five times increase in the population of Lahore. Acting upon the dictum laid down in The Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi v. Lt.-Gen. Wajid All Khan Burki (1), that the best method of fixing the market value is to find out what a Willing Purchaser would pay to a Willing Seller, he raised the valuation to a sum of Rs, 4,500.
3. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant that the area in dispute is a building site, that it is near the factories mentioned above, that is in factory area and that it is a part of the Lahore Township Scheme. It is also not denied that the land is quite valuable and belongs to Category 'A' as held by the Collector. Learned counsel, however, raised an objection that the respondent had himself claimed a sum of Rs, 3,200 per kanal as the value of the area in dispute and had relied upon 3 mutations bearing Nos. 961, 1008 and 1009, all dated 12-6-1963. The last two mutations, according to him, proved the area near the land to have been sold at the rate of Rs, 2,000 per kanal. He also argued that the order of the Collector was reasonable and he had taken all matters into consideration. He further assailed the order of the learned Civil Judge on the ground that he had taken some irrelevant matters into consideration ; for example increase in the population of Lahore by 4 to 5 times. Lastly he argued that since the respondent had already received the compensation as found by the Collector no interest could accrue on it.
4. I have gone through the evidence on record. I am of the view that there is no basis for the allegation, on the present record, that a demand of Rs, 3,200 per kanal was made by the respondent or that he had relied upon Mutation Nos. 1008 and 1009. This objection is, therefore, without force and is not borne out by the evidence on record.
5. Now the evidence consists of two documents. One of these documents is Mutation No, 961, Exh. P.
1 which was attested on the 1) PLD 1960 Lah. 469 12th of March 1963 and by which an area of 5 marlas was sold for a sum of Rs, 2,000 which brings the rate of Rs, 8,000 per kanal. The other document is Exh. P. 2, a registered sale-deed of 6 kanals of land for a sum of Rs, 56,000 registered on 9-2-1265. The oral evidence consists of 3 witnesses. A. W. 1 has merely made a statement about the situation of the land in dispute at the spot about which there is no contest in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. AW-2, a Property Dealer stated that he had been instrumental in selling lands of different pieces in the locality and those pieces were sold at a rate ranging from Rs, 4,000 to Rs, 4,500 per kanal. It was not suggested to him in cross-examination that he was not a Property Dealer or that he had not been instrumental in the transfer of some areas.
On the other hand the cross-examination assumed that some area was sold through him. Certain suggestions were put to him in order to prove that the land in some of the khasra numbers was sold at a very low rate but one suggestion which is very important was that Khasra No, 447 equal to 10 marlas was sold for a sum of Rs, 2,500 which he admitted. This proved the rate of this land as Rs, 5,000 per kanal. Regarding the khasra numbers which were transferred at a low rate he explained that they were of meagre quality. No evidence in rebuttal was produced except five years average Exh. RW. 1/1 which had been discarded by the learned Collector.
6. It is clear from this evidence that the area in dispute is of the best quality falling in Category 'A' as found by the Collector himself. The Mutation No, 961 proves that such areas have been sold for a sum of Rs, 8,000 per kanal in the year 1963 before the issuance of notification under section 4, of the Land Acquisition Act. That the valuation of the area is much more than Rs, 1950 is further proved by the valuable suggestion put on behalf of the petitioner to the AW. 2 in regard to the sale o Khasra No, 447 which proved the rate to be Rs, 5,000 per kanal. Clearly, therefore, it is established from this evidence that the value of the property in this locality in the year 1963, before the issuance of notification under section 4 ranged from Rs, 5,000 to Rs, 8,000 per kanal. The document Exh. P. 2 cannot be taken into consideration since it is a sale-deed of property sold 2 years after the said notification. The case of the respondent is, therefore, proved by Exh. P. 1 and supported by oral evidence of W.
2.
7. Even Exh. RW. 1/1 shows that some land had been sold as fa back as in the year 1960 for a much higher value. Reference may be made to mutation No, 516 dated 27-5-1960 by which 4 kanals of land was sold at that time for a sum of Rs, 10,000. Similarly, Mutation Nos. 770, 772 and 788 prove the value to range in the year 1961 from Rs, 2,500 to Rs, 5,000 per kanal. The value of the best land, therefore, B in the year 1968 must be much higher and cannot be less than Rs, 4,500 which has been fixed by the learned Civil Judge. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by him. As regards the award of the Collector, I have already discussed in the opening part o my judgment the way in which he has arbitrarily fixed the value of the land.
8. The last argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has, however, considerable force. The interest can be awarded on the difference between the amount awarded by the learned Civil Judge and the amount awarded by the Collector. The learned Civil Judge has awards the interest at the rate of 6i per cent per annum. By Act HI of 1969, section 28 was amended and the interest rate was raised to "compound, interest on such excess at the rate of eight per centum."
' The following proviso was also added at the end :- "Provided that in all cases where the Court has directed that Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum from the date on which possession was taken and the payment of compensation or a part thereof has not been made up to the commencement of the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Act, 1969, the rate of compound interest on such excess or balance shall be eight per centum."
' The rate of interest, payable on the difference between the value calculated at the rate of Rs, 4,500 and Rs, 1,950 will, therefore, be eight per centum from the date of the award of the Collector. I, therefore, allow the appeal, modify the order and decree of the learned trial Court only to the extent of interest as stated above. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.