Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)

  1. S. 4 — Notification — Transaction taking place after the issuance of notification must be proved to be bonafide and the onus to prove it is on the land owners — There is no convincing evidence on the record that it was a bonafide transaction. M. Sharif  v. Azad Govt. 1997 SCR 351 (F)
  2. S. 4 — Market value of the land at the time of notification under section 4 was merely one of the modes for determining the compensation and was not absolute yardstick for the assessment of compensation — Various matters have to be considered while determining compensation. Abdul Aziz v.  Azad Govt. & 2 others  2010 SCR 47 (C) PLD 2004 SC 512 rel.
  3. Section 4 — market value — determination of — escalation factor — contention  that  the estimate of the acquired houses were prepared by the Engineers in the year 2005, whereas, the notification under section 4 was issued in the year 2008 — the estimate prepared three years prior cannot be made basis for determination of market value of the acquired houses — Held: that at the time of issuance of award the escalation factor has taken into consideration by the Collector and in this regard an excess amount at the rate of 47.1% also paid to the owners of the houses. Khalid Mehmood  & 2 others v. Collector Land Acquisition & 3 others 2016 SCR 1075 (C)
  4. Section 4 — sale deeds — reliance upon — executed one year after issuance of notification — award made within a year of notification of section 4 — Thus, the learned High court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record and fell in error of law while relying upon the sale-deeds which have been executed after the publication of notification udder section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.As mentioned hereinabove in this case within less than a year’s period from the date of publication of notification under section 4, the proceedings of the award have been completed. There was neither any extraordinary delay nor any other exceptional compelling circumstances justifying therein the consideration of sale deeds executed after the publication of notification under section 4. In this background the enhancement made by the learned High Court is not according to principle of law. Collector Land Acquisition & 6 others v. Muhammad Taj & 2 others 2016 SCR 1009 (B)
  5. S. 4 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Ss. 4, 42. Mst. Khair-Nisa v. Azad Govt. of the State of JK through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 15 others 2013 SCR 66
  6. Ss 4, 5 and 5(A): whenever a notification under S.4 is issued for the purpose of acquisition, it is mandatory to hear the objection of the concerned land owners under Ss. 5 and 5-A of the Act. If no opportunity is provided to the owners of the land to submit their objections with regard to the acquisition proceedings cannot be said to have been taken under the provisions of the Act. Ch. Walayat Khan  v. Ch. Muhammad Azam 1995 SCR 384 (A)
  7. Ss. 4, 5, 6, 7 — AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Ss. 44, 56(A) — Appellants challenged process of acquisition being mala fide, against law and in violation of provisions of the Act — Rule of alternate remedy — High Court dismissed writ petition — Validity — No doubt, award could be challenged by way of a reference, if the question involved was of compensation, demarcation or right of apportionment but where a party had challenged the award on ground of mala fide against the legal provision, the alternate remedy was no bar in filing writ petition —- Petitioners-appellants had specifically challenged impugned award on ground of mala fide that their built-up property was being acquired which adjacent land of influential people had been kept out of award for excluding benefit to them — It appeared clear fraud on statute that land of citizens is acquired for a public purpose and subsequently it is transferred to a private party for developing a housing scheme for monetary benefits — Land can be acquired for public purpose and subsequent transfer to individuals for commercial purposes was not permitted by Constitution and law — What is not permissible to be done directly, cannot be done indirectly —  Subsequent act of respondents transferring land in question to a private party through notification was clear proof of mala fide — Civil appeal was allowed by Supreme Court/case remanded. ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS /AWAD — (Rule of alternate remedy) [Appellants had challenged impugned accused on ground of mala fide against legal provision, therefore, bar of alternate remedy was not attracted was and writ petition in High Court was maintainable. Case was remanded by Supreme Court].  Sultan Habib and 10 others  v. Mirpur Development Authority and 9 others 2013 SCR  101 (B)
  8. Ss. 4, 7, 9, 12, 18, 23 — Acquisition of land — Determining the compensation — Collector Land Acquisition enhanced compensation amount to Rs. 85,000/- per canal alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges which determination was upheld by High Court in appeal — Impugned judgment/decree — Analysis — In instant case notification was issued on 5.3.1992 — Sale-deed  dated 15.1.1996 could not be considered because it was executed after four years of issuance of notification — Another sale-deed executed on  13.11.1991 was produced in evidence — Said sale-deed was executed only four months prior to issuance of notification — Referee Judge observed  that lesser compensation could not be paid only for the  reason that Mirpur Development Authority would be overburdened but inspite of considering sale-deed, he fixed the compensation as Rs. 85,000/- alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges — Held: Land in question was being acquired for extension of Mirpur Town, which was a residential purpose and land of appellants had a potential to be sold at a higher price in the open market— Land in vicinity of same survey number wherefrom land was acquired, had been sold only four months prior to issuance of notification under the Act against the price of Rs. 200,000/- per canal — If no more, appellants were at least entitled for the same compensation — Decree of Referee Judge was accordingly amended — Appellants were entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 200,000/- per canal with 15% compulsory acquisition charges — Civil appeal was allowed by Supreme Court. ACQUISITION OF LAND — (Determintion of compensation) [Land in question was acquired for extension of Mirpur Town which was a residential purpose. Supreme Court which allowing appeal enhanced amount of compensation]. Akhtar Hussain and 2 others v. Azad Govt. of the State of J& K through Its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad & 2 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 70 (C)
  9. Ss. 4, 18 & 23 — Acquisition of land — Determination of market value — Collector determined market value of acquired land taking into consideration its market value at the time of publication of notification under section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also location and situation of the land — Distt. Judge on reference filed by owners of land, upheld the market value of land as determined by Collector and rejected reference — High Court enhanced the market value taking into consideration different sales of land adjacent to the land in question — Sales which were considered were made about two years from publication of notification of the acquired land — Validity — Market value of acquired land on the date of publication of notification u/s 4 Land Acquisition Act had to be taken into account under section 23 of the Act — Judgment of the High Court was vacated and the judgment of District Judge was restored. Muhammad Miskeen and 6 others  v. Azad Government and 4 others 2000 SCR 472 (A)
  10. Sections. 4, 23 & 24 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Sections. 42 & 44 — Acquisition of land — Market value, meaning of — Determination of compensation — Market value would mean, value of land which a willing purchaser was prepared to pay and a willing seller was prepared to sell for — Inclination of vendor to part with his land and urgent necessity of purchaser to buy or the use to which land would be put after acquisition, were to be ignored — Any increase, in the value of the other land of person interested, likely to accrue from the use for which land was acquired, was not to be considered while ascertaining market value — Compensation of acquired land was to be assessed according to the market value of land at the time of publication of notification under S.4(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Finding of High Court that as land acquired was to be used for construction of road, compensation thereof was to be paid at uniform rate, irrespective of the kind of land and other recognised principles on the basis of which market value was to be determined, being violative of said principle of law, was set aside by Supreme Court in circumstances. Azad Govt. and 3 others v. M. Anwar Shah 2000 SCR 391 (A) West Pakistan WAPDA v. Mst. Hiran Begum 1972 SCMR 138; District Welfare Officer, Guntur v. Pillalamarri Ramakrishans Somayajuly and others AIR 1963 Andh. Pra. 328 and Deputy Commissioner, Karachi v. Abu Bakar and others PLD 1972 Kar. 128 ref.
  11. Ss. 4, 18, 17, 23, 24 — See AJK Land Acquisition Rules, 1984, R. 10. Azad Govt. v. Sahibzada Raja M. Hanif Khan and others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 513 (D)
  12. Ss. 4, 18, 23 — Acquisition of land — Fixation of compensation — Principles — Claim of appellant was that land in question was highly valuable and situated near the road, therefore, it was duty of the Collector Land Acquisition to examine its potential value while determing compensation — Appraisal of evidence — Validity — Appellants produced before Collector Land Acquisition took sale-deeds (Exhbs) — Said sale-deeds were executed in year, 2002 whereas award in instant case was issued on 28-11-2005 i.e. three years after execution of said sale-deeds — During said there years, prices of land had gone much high — Referee Judge as well as High Court had not given any weight to said sale-deeds on ground that same were executed three years prior to issuance of notification — Rejection of sale-deeds which were executed prior to issuance of notification could not be turned down merely because they were executed three years prior to acquisition of land in question — If price of land sold three years’s prior to acquisition of land in question — If price of land sold three year’s prior to issuance of Notification was so high, then how the price of the land in question could be assessed lesser than the price prevailing three years prior to issuance of Notification, especially so when acquired land was situated on road — High Court itself came to conclusion that there was no rebuttal, therefore, finding of High Court that appellants failed to substantiate their claim was not sustainable in eye of law — Award stood modified by Supreme Court — Civil appeal allowed. ACQUISITION OF LAND — (Compensation amount) [Execution of sale-deeds 12 months prior to issuance of Notification under Land Acquisition Act is not a sole criteria to determine market value. Supreme Court accepted appeal]. Marawat Khan and 4 others Versus Collector Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Zone-1, Mirpur and 2 others  2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1224 (D)
  13. Ss. 4, 18, 23 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. WAPDA through Chief Engineer, Mangla Dam Raising Project, WAPDA, Mangla and another v. Sardar Asif Ayub Khan and another  2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 673 (D)
  14. Ss. 4, 18, 23 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Maqsood BiBi v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur (Zone-1) and 2 others  2013 SCR  973 (C)
  15. Ss. 4, 18, 23, 24 r/w Rr. 10, 12 of the Rules — Land acquisition proceedings — Enhancement of compensation — Determination of market value — Concurrent findings of facts — Pleadings and evidence — Validity — Referee Judge had not travelled beyond any statutory provision of law dealing with subject-matter — Reference Judge had formed opinion having original jurisdiction dealing with the matter, therefore, same could not be lightly ignored — For determination of market value, not only the sale-deeds but there may be some other material which can be taken into consideration as evidence in light of facts of each case — Appellant-land owner had neither produced any one from the vendees or vendors as witness nor himself had appeared as witness — All the documents had been tendered in evidence by appellant-land owner’s attorney — No doubt, those documents were certified copies of public documents but it did not mean that all the contents of said documents would be treated as proved — Neither there was any proper certification of the authorized public officer that the mentioned amount had actually been transacted nor the vendees or vendors had been produced as witnesses — Mere opinion that a different conclusion could also be drawn, was not a valid ground for interference in concurrently recorded findings — Appellant-land owner had not successfully made out any ground for interference in concurrently recorded findings — Civil appeal dismissed. ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION — (Market value) [Referee Judge had correctly enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Supreme Court dismissed appeal]. Ejaz Ahmed Mir v. Collector land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Circle Mirpur/Islamgarh, Mirpur and 3 others  2013 SCR  962 (B)
  16. Ss. 4, 18, 23, 54 — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Gulzar Hussain v. Azad Govt., through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 3 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1043 (B)
  17. Ss. 4, 18, 25, 24 — AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42 — Land acquisition proceedings — Enhancement of compensation — Criteria — Best evidence in determining the compensation can be the sale-deeds executed in the village but when there was no sale-deed executed in that village, the sale-deeds executed in the adjacent villages can be relied upon by the Collector for determining the compensation —- Held: Appellant had not produced any sale-deed executed in the adjacent villages, while Collector Land Acquisition had relied upon sale-deeds executed in said village during the past one year from the date issuance of Notification — Appellant failed to bring on record any sale-deed of adjacent village on basis of which compensation could be awarded upto fifty or sixty lac rupees per kanal — Claim of appellant that market value of acquired land was fifty to sixty lac rupees per kanal was not proved from any evidence — Collector relied upon sale-deeds executed or brought on record before him — Civil appeal dismissed. LAND ACQUISITION — (Comensation) [Collector Land Acquisition while relying upon the sale-ddeds in the adjacent village had enhanced amount of compensation. Supreme Court dismissed appeal.  Muhammad Mehrban v. WAPDA and 3 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 635
  18. Section 9 — acquisition proceedings — The Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained code, having a complete scheme — whenever a land is proposed to be acquired, the Collector shall issue a notification in the official gazette and any person interested may file objections and thereafter the Collector shall issue a declaration that the land is required for a public purpose— under section 9, the Collector shall cause a public notice to be given at convenient places or near to the land to be taken, to the effect that the Govt. intends to take possession of the land and the claims for compensation from all the interested persons in such land may be made to him. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (A)
  19. Sections 9 & 11 — The Collector after making inquiry, receiving objections and hearing the interested persons relating to the measurement and value of the land, respective interest and claims relating to the compensation, shall make the award of the true area, compensation, apportionment of compensation. M. Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (B)
  20. Sections 9 & 11 — award — necessary steps — (I) the Collector has to determine the true area of the land to be awarded, (ii) the compensation (iii) the apportionment of compensation amongst interested persons whether or not they have respectively appeared — If in response to the notice under section 9 interested persons have appeared and lodged claims, the Collector has determined true area of the land— the compensation and apportionment of the compensation — he shall make and sign the award and the award becomes complete. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (D)
  21. Canals & Drainage Act, 1873 — Sections 9 to 12 — Applicability of in acquisition proceedings — Sections 9 to 12 empower the Provincial Government to regulate the irrigation, canals, water of rivers and streams flowing in a natural channel or of any lake or other natural collection of still water — Held: The   objectives and scheme of this law is entirely different from the purpose and objectives of the Land Acquisition Act and procedure of acquisition of land, which purely run under the Land Acquisition Act. WAPDA Pakistan v. Naik M. & others 2015 SCR 1568 (E)
  22. —sections 9,12 and 18—sprit and scope—Held: the service of notice as required under section 9 and 12 according to scheme of law is mandatory requirement which cannot be dispensed with. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (K)  PLD 1970 Lah. 321 and PLD 1972 Lah. 458, rel.
  23. Sections 10, 11, 12, 18, 21, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31— Draft Form VIII — award — competency of reference u/s 30 — proposition; whether u/s 30, a person interested after final award can move application requiring the Collector to refer the matter to the Court — juxtapose study of above provisions — necessary — u/s 10 and 11, the Collector shall endeavour to ascertain  all the persons who have interest in the land or· any part thereof — while making enquiry the Collector has to determine the true area of  the land, the compensation and the apportionment — after conducting enquiry, u/s 11 the Collector shall have to make award of; (I) the true area of the land (ii) compensation and (iii) apportionment of compensation — matters (I) and (ii) shall be finalized by the Collector  whether the matter (iii)· regarding apportionment of the compensation should have to be determined under the provisions sections 29 and 30— juxtapose  appreciation of sections 11, 29. and 30 clearly connotes that while finalizing the award u/s 11 and 12 two possible modes has to adopt by the Collector —  one as u/s 29, the words “dispute arises'” clearly speak that this section comes in operation during the  proceedings conducted u/s 11 — the phraseology of the Draft Form No. VIII clearly speaks that the “dispute exists” between the interested parties if the issue of apportionment as a whole or any part thereof is not settled according to the provisions of section 29, then held: the Collector is under the duty to bring into action the powers vested in him u/s 30 to refer the matter to reference Court — Further held: issue of referring the matter u/s 30 only relates to the stage when the Collector is holding the enquiry u/s 11 — Further held: once the award is finalized u/s 12 and the particulars of the apportionment of compensation have been specified according to the provisions of section 29 which attains the status of conclusive evidence of correctness of apportionment, therefore, Collector is not vested with the powers tore-open the proceedings of final award whether suo-moto or on application of any person — If the interested person does not agree to the compensation or receive the same, or there is no person to alienate the land, or there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation, or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector is duty bound to deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference u/s 18 would be submitted — the juxtapose appreciation of the statutory provisions· of sections 11, 12 and 29 to 31 clearly speaks that the remedy of reference is only available to the interested person under section 18 which comprehensively contains all the issues relating to apportionment of compensation — Further held: the Collector has only to refer the matter u/s 30 when the award is not finalized u/s 12 and the issue of apportionment of, entitlement of the compensation falls u/s 30 instead of section 29. There is no concept of reference or application of any interested person after  finalization of the award by the Collector. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (N,O,P,Q,R,S&T)
  24. Civil suit — filed prior to award — maintainability of — according to the statutory provisions, although a civil suit is not expressly barred in all matters but despite this if implied bar is deemed applicable, even then the provisions of section 30 will attract only when the stage of inquiry for determination of compensation by the Collector under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reaches and not before that. Whereas, in the instant case, the suit was already pending before coming in operation of the proceedings under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. Same like the provision of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act will operate prospectively from the issuance of award Zanib Bibi v. Zainb Bibi & others 2015 SCR 830 (D)
  25. Section 11 — section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 speaks that the Collector will fix the date for inquiry in pursuant to the notice given under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act.  Zanib Bibi v. Zainb Bibi & others 2015 SCR 830 (C)
  26. Section 11 — award — term “award” is not defined in the Act but under section 11 it is a determination of true measurement of an area of land, settlement of compensation which in his opinion, may be allowed, apportionment of compensation amongst interested persons and when he declares as such, signs it and it is filed in the office. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (C)
  27. Sections 11,12 & 18 — award — reference —  limitation —  u/s 18, a person interested, who has not accepted any award, by file written application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for determination to the Court—The Collector has no option except to refer the matter to the Court— if a person was present or represented before the Collector when the award was made, the application shall be filed within six weeks and, in other cases within six weeks of the receipt of notice u/s 12(2) — or, within six months from the date of the  award, whichever period shall first expire. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (E)
  28. Sections 11, 18 & 19 — acquisition proceedings — duties of Collector — nature of — remedy of — award — reference — Proceedings conducted by Collector are of summary nature — collector has to expeditiously disposed of matters as enumerated u/s 11 — any person interested, who has not accepted award may by another application require the Collector to refer the matter to the Court all or any of the matter whether relating to measurement of land, amount of compensation or apportionment of compensation— Collector, on institution of application, is under obligation to furnish the required information to the Court i.e. the names of interested persons, if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation is determined; and to the said statement a schedule shall be attached giving the  particular of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the interested parties — Held: after finalizing the award, only the remedy of reference u/s 18 relating to the matters enumerated therein, is provided. M. Rasheed  v. Adalat Khan & others 2016 SCR 1406 (K)
  29. Sections 11& 30 — award — reference — status of — u/s 30 the word ‘may’ has been used — It has been left up to the discretion of the Collector that he may refer a question for determination of the Court or himself decide the same — If claims involves question of title and Collector before drawing of award reaches the conclusion that he is unable to determine the rights of the interested persons and it is not possible to settle the question of apportionment, then, he may refer the question to the Court for determination —The situation changes when the Collector draws the award, settles the apportionment and an interested person comes forward and claims his entitlement for the compensation and requests that the matter be referred to the Court for determination of title and apportionment of compensation — Held: when a question about the title or apportionment of compensation is raised before the issuance of the award, the Collector has a discretion to decide the question himself or may refer the question to the Court and if, after issuance of award an interested person comes forward and raises a question of apportionment before the Collector then the Collector has no option except to refer the question to the Court. M. Rasheed v. Adalat Khan & others 2016 SCR 1406 (F,G) PLD 1977 Pesh. 45, AIR 2003 SC 942 & PLD 1963  AJK 66 rel.
  30. S. 12 — It was a legal requirement to serve a notice on the appellants under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act — It is now well settled that no adverse action can be taken against a person keeping him in dark and in such situation in which a person is kept in dark about the proceeding or order limitation has to run from the date of knowledge. Jan & 4 others v. Azad Government & 7 others 1996 SCR 257 (A) PLD 1969 SC 582 relied.
  31. S. 12 — Provides that if a person is not present at the time of announcing the award a notice shall be issued to him — If no notice is issued to affected person then, how the limitation shall start from the date of award — The time shall start running against him from the date of knowledge.Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Muhammad Rafique Khan 2009 SCR 320 (C)
  32. S. 12 — Issuance of notice — Mandatory. [Reference Judge had committed an error while not relying upon said Transfer Order under the Land Acquisition proceedings. Supreme Court declared that appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation. Appeal was allowed]. WAPDA and another v. Sardar Asif Ayub Khan and another 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 673 (F)
  33. S. 12 (2) — Provides that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when award is made — Appellants were not present on the date when award was issued — Limitation for filing the reference in present case was six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice from Collector. Govt. of Pakistan and another v. Syed Ghulam Haider Shah and 5 others 2007 SCR 175 (A)
  34. S. 12(2) — As far the period of six months’ limitation from date of Collector’s award is concerned, it has no application in the present case — Even otherwise the limitation provided by sub-section (6) is to be read together — If the period of six weeks from the receipt of notice from the Collector expires first the period of six months shall not be considered — The limitation of six months has to be counted from the date of Collector’s award irrespective of the fact whether the appellants were informed of it or not. Govt. of Pakistan v. Syed Ghulam Haider Shah 2007 SCR 175 (E)
  35. — section 12— award —notice to the interested person—under section 12(1), the Collector shall issue award in respect of true area and apportionment of the compensation among the person interested— section 12(2) makes it mandatory upon the Collector to give immediate notice to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives— The wisdom behind notice is that a person whose land has been acquired, shall be intimated that his land has been acquired and the compensation has been determined in the terms stated in the award. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (B)
  36. —Section 12 (2)—Limitation for filing reference— It is settled law that if a notice of award u/s12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is not issued and served upon the interested person, then limitation for filing reference shall be reckoned from the date of knowledge and not from the date of award. Qurban Hussain & another  v. WAPDA & others 2017 SCR 524 (A)
  37. —Award—amendment/correction of—by the Collector—-after announcement of same—is not warranted under law—once award is filed, the same is final and conclusive— Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that once an award is filed, the same is final and conclusive. The Collector Land Acquisition has no jurisdiction to review the award made by him, as he is not functioning as a court. The finality of the award is not dependent on filing it in the Collector’s office in compliance with section 12(2).  In case, the claimant is aggrieved, he can ask the collector to refer the matter to the civil Court under section 18 of the Act. Admittedly in the case in hand, on the application of the appellant, the correction was made in the award while deleting the name of the respondent on the application of the appellant and the award was announced. The name of the appellant finds place at serial No.35 of the award. There was no occasion for the Collector Land Acquisition to review the same while issuing the amended one, as the law does not support the act of the Collector. Munir Ali v. Arfan Mehmood & another 2017 SCR 1467 (A)
  38. —sections 12 and 18—AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974—Right No.14 of section4(4)—acquisition of land—notice mandatory—reference application—limitation—Right No.14 provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law— The property of a person can be acquired for public purpose under the authority of law— when the  award is issued under section 12(1) in absence of the land owner, then it is mandatory to issue notice to such person — if the Collector fails to issue notice and the land owner  remained in dark about the issuance of award then limitation shall not start running against such person without acquiring the knowledge. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (F) AIR 1961 SC 1500, rel.
  39. Limitation — for filing reference — Ss. 12(2), 18, — issuance of notice to the land owners regarding the issuance of award — If the notices were not issued regarding the issuance of award— S.18 provides the mechanism for filing reference application — At the time of announcement of award — the land owners were abroad— they received the compensation thereafter under protest. The reference application filed by them was dismissed by the Reference Judge on the point of limitation and the learned High Court also affirmed the view expressed by the trial Court. Held: from the combined reading of the provisions of both the sections, reproduce hereinabove, it reveals that when service is not effected upon the person interested, then the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge. Muhammad Mehrban v. Collector Land Acquisition 2015 SCR 1034 (A) 2009 SCR 320 & 2013 SCR 673 ref.
  40. —section 12(2)& 18—limitation for filing reference—computation of limitation— if  notice u/s 12(2) which is mandatory, not issued to the landowner—regarding issuance of award—then limitation starts running from the date of knowledge of award—record shows—no mandatory notice issued—appellant was abroad—who has not received compensation— even filed reference through attorney—according to the provisions of section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is enjoined upon the Collector to issue notice immediately to the landowner regarding the issuance of award. If no notice is served upon the landowner, then under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge. Shams Shahzad v. WAPDA & others  2017 SCR 893 (A)
  41. —sections 12 and 18—reference application–limitation for—when an award is drawn under section 12 in absence of land owner and notice under section 12(2) is not issued—then limitation shall running against such person from the date of knowledge and not from the date of award. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (G) 1996 SCR 257 rel.
  42. — Sections 12 and 18— limitation for—filing reference application— From the combined survey of both the provisions reproduced hereinabove, it reveals that when service is not effected upon the person interested, then the limitation shall running from the date of knowledge. Public Works Deptt.& others v. Abdul Aziz & others 2022 SCR 1666 (B)
  43. — sections 12(2) and 18— Clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18—limitation for reference application—interpretation of—proposition—limitation from date of knowledge whether six weeks or six months— clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 18 provides  two eventualities— when notice is issued under section 12(2) then the limitation shall be 6 weeks from the date of receipt of notice — if notice not issued then limitation shall be 6 months from the date of award— the last words of clause (b) of sub-section (2), i.e. “Whichever period shall first expire” are most important— under section 12(2) the Collector shall give immediate notice of award but where Collector fails to give immediate notice, notice is issued after a passage of 5 months and received before the expiry of six months, then the period of six months in normal course will be lesser as compared to six weeks from the date of receipt of notice— where notice under section 12(2) is not issued and knowledge is acquired after a period of five and half months ,the lesser period is 6 weeks and limitation will be 6 weeks from the date of knowledge and not six months from the date of knowledge—Held: when an award is issued under section 12(1) and no notice is issued to the land owner, limitation in such case will be 6 weeks from the date of knowledge. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (H)
  44. —Section 12(2) and 18—limitation for reference application—when an award is issued in the absence of party and notice under section 12(2) is not issued to the party then limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (C,D&E) 2009 SCR 320, 2013 SCR 673 and 2015 SCR 1034, rel. 2007 SCR 175 distinguished.
  45. — Sections 12(2) and 18(2) —reference application— limitation for—Section 18(2) of Land Acquisition Act, provides limitation of six weeks, if the person making it was present at the time of issuance of award and in other cases six weeks of the receipt of notice from Collector under section 12(2) or within six months from the date Collector’s award, whichever, shall first expire. Public Works Deptt.& others v. Abdul Aziz & others 2022 SCR 1666 (A)
  46. Sections 12, 18 & 30 — reference to the Court — scope of section 30 — According to the spirit of Act (special law) and· nature of the acquisition proceedings, the Legislature has intended to save the parties from unnecessary and lengthy process of litigation — Collector vested with the powers of summary enquiry — If the purpose of section 30 is deemed to be so wide that any person at any time can move to the Collector for reference or the Collector is vested with the powers to re-open the matter once finalized u/s 12, it will amount to frustrate the very purpose of special law and also generate unnecessary litigation and make the matter· more complex — It is also against the public interest to interpret the provisions of section 30 in the manner that after finalization of the award the interested person, who has failed to file reference u/s 18, can as alternate apply for reference u/s 30 or the Collector at any time can suo-moto reopen the issue and refer the matter to the Court. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (V)
  47. Sections 12 and 30 — Held: no reference u/s 30 on behalf of any interested person is competent after final award and the Collector before finalizing the award u/s 12 can refer the matter to the Court as required under the provisions section 30. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (X)
  48. S. 18 — Award under section 18 becomes final. A Local Authority or a company can neither ask for reference nor on any reasoning has right to prefer an appeal. A.J.K University v. Mst. Alif Noor 1994 SCR 207 (B)
  49. The limitation for filing of application for reference under section 18 has to start from the date of award till its filing with the Collector of the District for referring the same to the designated Court. Azad Government and 3 others v. Riaz Ahmed & another 2007 SCR 468 (D)
  50. Section 18 — commencement of operation — after issuance of award — A bare reading of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, speaks that it will come into operation after issuance of the award and not before that. Zanib Bibi v. Zainb Bibi & others 2015 SCR 830 (A)
  51. Sections 18 — Civil Procedure Code — section 9 — remedy for aggrieved in the cases not covered u/s 18 of Act — in some exceptional cases, which are not covered under section 18, the remedy before the Civil Court is also available to an interested person subject to the legal conditions — According to the basic principle of ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, the Civil Courts are vested with vast jurisdiction u/s 9 regarding the suits of civil nature except those which are expressly or impliedly barred by any law. M. Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (W)
  52. —Section 18—Civil Procedure Code, O.XLI, R.33—compensation to land owners—benefit to land owners who had not filed appeal before the High Court for enhancement of compensation—benefit to such land owners, also extended under order XLI, rule 33, CPC. Muhammad Latif  Khan & others v. Azad Govt.& others 2017 SCR 1570 (E) PLD 2010 SC 878 rel.
  53. —section 18—limitation for filing of reference—contention: once a reference is referred by Collector Land Acquisition the question of limitation cannot be agitated. Held: the argument is without any substance. Neither there is any statutory provision supporting the contention of the counsel for the appellants nor it is consistent with the spirit and scheme of law. Muhammad Hanif & others v. Muhammad Sadiq & others 2017 SCR 217 (A)
  54. —section 18—limitation for filing of reference—Reference Court competent to resolve issue of limitation—Collector’s act of forwarding of reference does not debar Reference Court to resolve limitation—It can safely concluded that eh Reference Judge is competent to resolve the proposition of limitation and mere Collector’s act of referring the matter to the reference Judge does not debar the reference Court from deciding the question of limitation. Muhammad Hanif v. Muhammad Sadiq & others 2017 SCR 217 (B)
  55.                 — section 18— reference application— limitation for —in case of difference eventualities— proviso to sub-section 2 of section 18 provides three eventualities for determining the limitation for filing the reference application— if the interested person was present at the time of Collector’s  award, the limitation will be 6 weeks from the award—if the interested person was not present then notice under section 12(2) shall be issued and the limitation shall be 6 weeks from the date of receipt of notice; and — if the interested person was not present and notice under section 12(2) was not issued then limitation shall be 6 months from the date of award—under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 18 whichever period shall first expires will be the limitation for fling the application. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (A)
  56. —section 18—scheme and spirit of law—interpretation of—reference application—limitation—notice mandatory— words “any person interested who has not accepted the award”, used in sub section(1) are of vital importance to appreciate the spirit of law and intention of legislature— pre-condition for acceptance or non-acceptance of a thing is awareness and knowledge of such thing or an offer from the other side— an award can  only be accepted or rejected when the interested person has knowledge of the award and its contents—Held: For computation of limitation u/s 18 the knowledge of the award and its contents by its actual or constructive communication is the basic requirement to enable the interested person to accept or reject the award. Azad Govt. & another v. Waheed Ahmed Khan & 10 others 2017 SCR 175 (J)  AIR 1961 SC 1500 ref.
  57. —section 18—Reference application—limitation— condonation of delay—filing of reference before wrong forum— direct to the District Judge instead of through the Collector—later, returned by the District Judge and then filed to the Collector— No ground for condonation of delay—the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the reference petition was bona fidelyfiled directly before the Reference Judge, thus the period  consumed in the litigation may be condoned and the reference application may be declared well within time, is concerned, it is totally misconceived. The superior Courts have time and again held that the proceedings at wrong forum cannot be made basis for condonation of delay. Mehraj Khalid vs Azad Govt. & 6 others 2018 SCR 1095 (B)
  58. section 18—reference—application can be filed by any interested person who has not accepted the award—such person may file written application if he feels unsatisfied with the award and deems that the matter be referred to the Collector for determination of the Court, in case he objects to the measurement of the land, amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested— Malik Mohammad Siddique & 2 others v. Commissioner Mangla Dam & 17 others 2020 SCR 552 (A).  —section 18—reference application—limitation of—no notice served under section 12(2) —reference should have been filed within a period of six weeks from the date of knowledge– Sadheer Ahmed & 19 others v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2020 SCR 586 (A) 2009 SCR 320 & 2017 SCR 175 rel
  59. —Sections 18, 19—maintainability of reference filed directly before the District Judge—Held: that the reference was not entertainable directly by the District Judge in violation of the mandatory procedure provided by section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 18 provides a special mode for making reference application and the District Judge may entertain it, if the conditions prescribed by section 18 of the Act, have been complied with. Further held: The District Judge has no original jurisdiction for hearing a reference and is a persona designata who can assume the jurisdiction only when a properly constituted reference is sent to it by the Collector, after preparing the statement as visualized by section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. Muhammad Fazil Khan & others v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1117 (A)
  60.                                                     —Sections 18, 19—Reference application—procedure for filing of—if not followed, reference not competently filed—limitation shall not start from filing of subsequent reference rather from as otherwise laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—perusal of the above-reproduced provision of law sufficiently reveals that the period of limitation for filing reference is six weeks from the date of issuance of award or six weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector under section 12(2) of the Act. Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides the procedure for Collator’s statement to the Court, which is mandatory requirement of law for filing a reference. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the reference petition dated 2.7.2007 was filed before the Reference Judge without fulfilling the requirements of section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e. Collector’s statement to the Court, which was rightly returned to the appellants, herein, and the subsequent reference petition filed on 10.9.2009, has rightly been dismissed by the High Court, for having been filed after expiry of the period of limitation, as laid down under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mehraj Khalid vs Azad Govt. & 6 others 2018 SCR 1095 (A)
  61. —sections 18, 19 & 20—reference application—necessary parties—objection that Kotli Development Authority being necessary party not arrayed—Held: landowner filed application under section 18 and under section 19—it is the duty of collector to furnish the details and necessary information to the Court—under section 20, the Court has to determine that as to whom the notice has to be served for appearance—the applicant/landowner in his application regarding the objection against award is not required to array parties as required in civil plaints. M. Amin & 3 others v.  Azad Govt. & 23 others2020 SCR 66 (G)
  62. —Ss. 18, 31 (2) —reference—After receiving compensation of acquired land—without protest—competency of– –Held: that admittedly the respondents have received the compensation without protest, hence, they were not entitled to file reference after the receipt of compensation. Director Auqaf vs Zaheer Ahmed & others 2018 SCR 1268 (A) 2010 SCMR 1408 rel
  63. Section 18 and 30 — operation of — In presence of prior filed pending suit — in case of prior filed pending civil suit, the provisions of section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not attracted. Zanib Bibi v. Zainb Bibi & others 2015 SCR 830 (E)
  64. Part III — Deals with reference to Court and procedure to be updated by the Court — S.18 deals with reference to Court — S.19 provides that the Collector in making reference to the Court shall furnish information in respect of award and other details about the property acquired — Ss. 20 to 22 and Ss. 25 to 28 explain the jurisdiction of Court and its procedure — Ss. 23 and 24 form the substantive law as to what matter the Court shall and what matter it shall not take into consideration while determining the amount of compensation payable in compulsory acquisition proceedings — The Court has power under section 28 to direct the Collector to pay enhanced amount of compensation as determined by the Court of Reference. Government of Pakistan and another v. Syed Ghulam Haider Shah and 5 others 2007 SCR 175 (F)
  65. S. 18 — Provides different periods of limitation for filing of a reference (A) a person or a party present at the time of award can file the reference within six weeks from the date of Collector’s award, (B) within six weeks of the receipt of notice from the Collector under section 12(2), (C) within six months from the date of Collector’s award. Azad Government and 3 others  v. Riaz Ahmed & another 2007 SCR 468 (C)
  66. S. 18 — A person who has not accepted the award cannot approach the Court directly — He has to move the Collector by a written application that he has not accepted the award whether it is in respect of measurement of land or amount of compensation or entitlement of compensation or apportionment of compensation amount to interested persons — The application shall be made in a specified period. Chief Engineer & another v. Anwar Begum & 9 others 2009 SCR 199 (C)
  67. S. 18 — Land Acquisition Act is a special law which has been enacted for acquisition of property for public purpose — The Collector is authorised to acquire the property and determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the owners on account of such acquisition — Any person aggrieved from the award cannot directly approach the civil Court —  The person who has not accepted the award may by written application to the Collector require that matter be referred to the Court for determination. Chief Engineer & another v. Anwar Begum & 9 others 2009 SCR 199 (B)
  68. S. 18 — There is no specific mode that how the application under the section is framed and presented — The application sent by post has been accepted as validly presented — There is no condition that application shall accompany with all documents upon which the petitioner relies — If the conditions mentioned in the section are fulfilled then it is incumbent upon Collector to forward the same to the Court. Chief Engineer v. Anwar Begum & 9 others 2009 SCR 199 (E)
  69. —Section 18(1) —instead of filing reference to the court — application for correction/amendment in the award was filed after the finalization of award— effect of— Held. When the award had been finalized and the compensation amount had been disbursed to the landowners, then the Collector Land Acquisition was notslawfully authorized to amend the award and recover the received compensation for the land owners. Further Held: after finalization of the award the Collector Land Acquisition had not authority to pass the order. Gulzar Begum v. Asghar Ali alias Aksar Ali & others 2022 SCR 1236 (A)  2016SCR 1406 & 2017 SCR 14 67 rel.
  70. S. 18, 12 — Time-barred Reference — Question of limitation — Limitation for filing reference is six weeks — Neither the Collector had issued applicant notice of award nor the service was effected upon him — All proceedings had been taken in his absence and without his knowledge — If notice under Section 12 is not proved to have been issued and served upon the person interested, then limitation shall start from the date of knowledge — Held: Instant reference had been filed within the period of limitation. WAPDA and another v. Sardar Asif Ayub Khan 2013 SCR  673 (E)
  71. Sections 18 & 19 — Acquisition of Land — compensation thereof — reference — any interested person who has not accepted the award, may within a period of six weeks by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred to the Court — the Collector shall refer the same to the Court within  a period of 30 days from the receipt of application — under section 19, the Collector while referring the matter shall state the information about the particulars of land, trees, buildings, etc., name of interested persons, amount awarded for damages, compensation, objections and schedule of particulars of notice as served upon the parties. WAPDA & another v. Muhammad Iqbal & 10 others 2015 SCR 35 (A)
  72. Sections 18 & 30 — references — reference u/s 30 — limitation of — no limitation is prescribed u/s 30 — The expression ‘the person present or represented’ before the Collector as used in Section 18, at the time when he made award, would include within its meaning a person, who shall be deemed to be present or represented before the Collector when award is made — A person cannot take the benefit of legal provision that no limitation is prescribed u/s 30, therefore, he may move for referring the matter u/s 30 and Collector is bound to refer the matter at any time — Held: An interested person may move the Collector to refer the matter to the Court within a reasonable time. Muhammad Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (H) AIR 1941 Lahore 268, AIR 1966 SC 37, PLD 1967  SC  191 &  AIR 2003 SC 942.    discussed 
  73. Sections 18 & 30 — Limitation Act, 1908 — Section 4, 9 to 18 and 22 — reference — Limitation — remedy for person who has not associated the acquisition proceeding or in whose absence or knowledge the proceedings have been completed — Section 29 of the Limitation Act clearly mentions that the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18, and 22  shall be applicable to the proceedings for determination of any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law— Land Acquisition has not specifically excluded the application of section 4 and sections 9 to 18 of Limitation Act, thus, sections 9 to 18· come in· operation and the interested aggrieved persons may take benefit of the sections according to the facts and circumstances of the case — Held: mere apprehension that the reference has become barred u/s 18 hence it can be preferred u/s 30, has no legal justification and substance. M. Rasheed & 4 others v. Adalat Khan & 3 others 2016 SCR 1406 (U)
  74. Ss. 18 and 50 (2)- Section – 50(2) controls section 18 and takes away the right of appeal from the Local Authority or Company for whom the land is being acquired — According to sub-section 2 of section 50 a local authority or a company is only conferred a right to appear in proceedings before the Collector or the Court and adduce the evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation but a reference under section 18 by them is barred under the provision of sub-section 2 of section 50. A.J.K University  v.  Mst. Alif Noor 1994 SCR 207 (A)
  75. —Section 19— maintainability of reference directly filed before the District Judge—The contention of the appellants that the Collector was not present on the relevant date—Held: has no substance in it. The reference application can be filed in the office and subsequently the Collector has to prepare the statement under section 19 and send the reference to the District/Reference Judge for further proceedings. The filing of reference application firstly before the Collector is a statutory requirement having a purpose behind it because before making the reference, the Collector has to decide on the material before him, as to whether he should refer the matter or not. Muhammad Fazil Khan & others v. Azad Government & others 2017 SCR 1117 (C)
  76. Section 19(1) (B) — interested person in the reference — Land acquired for the project of WAPDA —determination of interested parties — under section19(1) (B) the Collector shall furnish information in respect of persons interested, whom he has  reason to believe as such — land acquired for the project of WAPDA — process of acquisition was initiated by WAPDA through Chief Engineer, Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement), Mangla Dam Raising Project — First interested party in the reference is the land owner — Since the process of award was initiated by WAPDA through Chief Engineer/Project Director and Superintending Engineer (Resettlement) — most of the land-owners being the functionaries and in some application WAPDA was arrayed as party through Chairman — Collector, determined WAPDA was arrayed as party through Chairman — Collector determined WAPDA as interested party — Held: Chief Engineer, Project Director and the Superintending Engineer are not interested party by their office. WAPDA & another v. Muhammad Iqbal & 10 others 2015 SCR  35 (B)
  77. Section 23 — Compensation amount is to be paid according to the market value of the land acquired and by applying a uniform formula in absence of any evidence which could enable a Court to fix market value of the land acquired — Obviously, the Judgment of the High Court whereby the amount of compensation was fixed at Rs.60,000/- per kanal through a consolidated judgment is not sustainable — The observation of the High Court that the land which was acquired was to be used for the construction of the road, the compensation should be paid at uniform rate and not according to the kinds of the land etc. is violative of principles envisaged in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act — According to which the compensation is to be assessed on the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sahibzada Muhammad Dawood Shah & 3 others 1999 SCR 381 (A)
  78. S. 23 — For determining the compensation amount section 23 is relevant. Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Muhammad Rafique Khan 2009 SCR 320 (D)
  79. S. 23 — Compensation — Determination of — Where the land is compulsorily acquired, the return proposed to be given in lieu of land to the owner is compensation, not the market value — Various matters have to be considered while determining the compensation of land — Market value is one of such factors to be considered by the Collector or the Court. Abdul Aziz  v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 47 (A)
  80. S. 23 — Acquisition of land — Criterion for determining the market value — The market value shall be assessed after analyzing all the material and evidence available on the point and determining the price which a willing purchaser will pay to a willing seller of the acquired land — The Court shall take into consideration the market value and the loss by reason of serving such land from  the other land — The best method of determination of market price of the land under the acquisition process is to rely on the instances of sale of it near about the date of notification — The next best method is to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent land made shortly before and after the notification — No doubt, for determining the market value, classification or nature of the land may be taken as relevant consideration but that is not the whole truth — An area may be Banjar Qadeem or Barani but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits — For determining the market value the measure of fair compensation is the value of  property on the open market — Only the past sales should not be taken into consideration but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determined by examining (if necessary as Court-witness) local property declares or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. Akhtar Hussain v. Azad Govt. 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 70 (A)
  81. S. 23 Criterion in determining the compensation — Word “Market value” — Definition word ‘‘market value’’ is not defined in the said Act and generally it means the value of the land on which the owner is ready to sell his land to a willing buyer voluntarily. Akhtar H. and others v. Azad Govt. of the State of JK through Its Chief Sec., Muzaffarabad & others 2013 SCR 70 (B)
  82. S. 23 — ‘Market value’, term of — Meaning — Market value can be termed as the value of land on which the owner is ready to sell his land to a willing buyer voluntarily against the price of his choice — The market value of the land varies from place to place and average market price is calculated while keeping in view the sale of land in the vicinity. WAPDA and another v. Sardar Asif Ayub Khan and another 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 673 (A)
  83. Section 23 — criteria for determination of compensation — held: For determining the compensation, the market value is not sole criteria but the other factors are also required to be taken into consideration. M. Iqbal v. The Collector Land Acquisition 2014 SCR 975 (A) 2013 SCR 513, and Ch. M. Siddique and others v. Azad Govt. and others (Civil Review No. 24 of 2011, decided on 24.04.2013) rel.
  84. S. 23 — market value — determination of — the best evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land may be the sale-deeds executed prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 and the sale-deeds executed thereafter within 12 months period in the same vicinity — If the sale-deeds of the land situated in the same village are not available then the sale-deeds executed in the adjoining village can be considered. Khadim Hussain & 5 others v. Collector Land acquisition & another 2016 SCR 601 (B) Ch. Muhammad Siddique Advocate and others vs. Azad Government and others (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2010, decided on 15.07.2011) & 2013 SCR 70 rel.
  85. —Section 23—compensation—market value—determination of— land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put but also by reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in future—market value is the potential value of the property which would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller Secretary Education & 2 others Versus Muhammad Hafeez 2021 SCR 414 (A) PLJ 2001 SC (AJ&K) 123 & 2015 SCR 1190 ref.
  86. —Section 23—compensation— determination of—market value—while determining the market value of the acquired property, the average price of one year prior to or after issuance of notification u/s 4, has to be considered— compensation assessed on the basis of 15 years’ old price of the land on the ground that the land is in the possession of the Deptt. since 1995— irrespective of the fact of possession of the Deptt. over the acquired land, law provides for determination of compensation from the date of issuance of notification u/s 4. Secretary PWD &others v. Azad Govt. 2022 SCR 482 (A)
  87. —Section 23—various reasons provided for fair compensation—held: various reasons are to be considered for determination of fair compensation amount. WAPDA v. Muhammad Rasheed & others  2022 SCR 1080 (B)
  88. — Section 23 — determination of market value/compensation — land is not to be valued mere by reference to the use to which it is being put but also by reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in future market value is the potential value of property at the time of acquisition which would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller, when both are actuated by business principles — price of land acquired has to be fixed in accordance with the aim and rule that willing buyer was ready to pay and willing seller was prepared to receive the price fixed for whole of the land. Director Education Planning Muzaffarabad vs Abdul Majeed & others 2024 SCR 255 (A)
  89. —sections 23 & 18—acquisition of land—compensation–determination of market value—documentary evidence, i.e. saledeed etc. and oral evidence—contention of the learned Advocate that the market value of the land has not been proved through any documentary evidence i.e. sale-deed etc. and the compensation cannot be enhanced on the basis of oral account. Held: that the learned High Court has based his judgment on the case reported as (PLD 1986 SC 158). In this case the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that even the oral account can be considered for enhancement of compensation because while deciding the cases involving the questions of life and death the same is accepted. Government of Pakistan v. Dr. Najeeb Naqi & 6 others 2020 SCR 318 (A)
  90. —sections 23 & 24—market value and compensation—determination of—once the collector himself on the basis of record mentioned the market value of the land thereafter he has no authority to ignore such findings and conditions laid down in sections 23 & 24 and determine the compensation in according to his own wish or will. M. Amin & 3 others v.  Azad Govt. & 23 others  2020 SCR  66 (H) —section 25—Rules as to amount of compensation—argument: that the appellant did not claim enhancement while filing  objections u/s 9(2)—therefore not entitled to enhancement—the bare reading of section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act shows that the same contains 3 clauses; under section 25(3) the Court has power , subject to sufficient reasons , to award the amount more than that awarded by the Collector but under section 25(1) , the amount of compensation to be awarded to the landowner cannot exceed the amount claimed by him pursuant to the notice given to him under section 9 of the Act. Subsection 2 of section 25 of the Act is applicable when the landowner without sufficient reason has refused to make claim before the Collector when the award is made, which eventually is not available in the instant case. Argument repelled. WAPDA v. Muhammad Ramzan Datt & others 2017 SCR 877 (A)
  91. S. 23(1) — The Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land, loss by reason of serving such land from other land, acquisition injuriously affecting the other property or earnings in consequence of change of residence or place of business and damage, if any resulting from diminution of profits of land between the time of publication of declaration under section 6 and at the time of taking possession of land by the Collector. Abdul Aziz  v. Azad Govt. 2010 SCR 47 (F)
  92. Sections 23 & 6 — Acquisition proceedings — Method for determination of compensation — The Collector shall have to take into consideration the damage affecting the property movable or immovable, or his earning — If the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses incidental to such change shall also be taken into consideration — Sections 23 provides the sole method for determination of compensation against the acquired property whether it is movable or immovable or earning of livelihood–Under law the Court shall not take into consideration any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of declaration. WAPDA Pakistan v. Naik M.  2015 SCR 1568 (A)
  93. Sections 23 & 24 — determination of compensation — The sale-deeds registered during the period of one year prior to the issuance of notification u/s 4 have to be considered but this is not a sole criteria for determination of the compensation — The saledeed registered immediately after issuance of the notification under section 4 and prior to the issuance of award, are also relevant for determination of the compensation— Apart from that, while determining the compensation, the market value of the land has to be considered while keeping in view the potential value of the land for use of which the same may reasonably be put in future. Azad Govt. & others  v.  Muhammad Yousaf & others 2015 SCR 1190 (D) 1996 SCR 132, 1996 SCR  136 & 2013 SCR 1224 ref.
  94. Sections 24 & 6 — determination of compensation — After publication of the notification under section 6, the compensation cannot be determined for damage that may be caused to the affectee in the future time. WAPDA Pakistan v. Naik Muhammad & others 2015 SCR 1568 (B)
  95. —Section 25— claim by land owner in pursuant to notice under section 9—the land owner is not entitled to claim the amount more than the one claimed by him before Collector Land Acquisition—under section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it has categorically been mentioned that when the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed. The provision clearly postulates that where a landowner has claimed a certain sum before the Collector Land Acquisition, he cannot claim a larger sum in his reference to the Court. Thus, it may be observed that the appellant was not entitled to claim the amount more than he agreed upon and negotiated.    Muhammad Roshan Khan v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 190 (A)
  96. Section 25 & Section 9 — compensation — awarding of or enhancement thereof — If an affectee claims compensation in pursuance of notice under section 9 , then the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed by him in the application. WAPDA Pakistan v. Naik Muhammad & others 2015 SCR 1568 (C)
  97. —Section 25(2) —compensation—enhancement of—when the landowners have claimed a certain amount in pursuance of notice given to them u/s 9, then the Court cannot enhance the compensation from the claimed amount. National Highway Authority v. Sh. Muhammad Siddique & others 2022 SCR 896 (A) 2019 SCR 190 ref.
  98. — Section 25 (3) — no relief can be granted to a party beyond the pleadings— the owners sought compensation of the acquired house bearing code No. I-368-B as Rs. 25,00,000/-, whereas, the learned High Court has enhanced and fixed the compensation of the said house to the tune of Rs. 27,53,627/-. Held: it is settled principle of law that no relief can be granted to a party beyond the pleadings. WAPDA v. Muhammad Qayyum & others  2022 SCR 1219 (B)
  99. —Compensation —determination and enhancement of— the best evidence that can be considered for enhancement of compensation is the sale-deed executed before issuance of the notification u/s 4 or immediately thereafter—in presence of the sale-deed pertaining to the same village the sale-deed pertaining to the adjacent village cannot be considered— if sale-deed pertaining to same village is not available then the sale-deed of the adjacent village can be considered for determination of the compensation. Azad Govt. & others v. Imdad Ali Khan & others  2022 SCR 963 (C) 2015 SCR 1585, 2016 SCR 1236 & 2013 SCR 635 ref.
  100. S. 26 — The award is to be treated as decree, as such it was not necessary to file the copy of a decree sheet along with the memorandum of appeal in High Court. Azad Govt. of the State of J &K v. M. Rafique Khan 2009 SCR 320 (B) PLD 2000 SC (AJK) 34 & 1998 CLC 1068 rel.
  101. S. 28 — Owners of the land were entitled to receive interest from the date when possession of their land was taken from them and not from the date of judgment of High Court — Held: The law is clear on the subject. MDA v. Muhammad Hanif & 23 others 2005 SCR 44 (B)
  102. —Section 28— payment of interest on excess compensation—Held: the interest at the rate of six per centum could only be granted by the Collector from the date on which he took possession of the suit land to the date of payment of sum so enhanced. Azad Government & 2 others v. Abdul Hameed & 15 others 2017 SCR 1034 (A)
  103. Section 30 — stage of operation — a plain reading of above statutory provisions of the special law, clearly speaks that the legislature has categorically mentioned the stage at which the collector has to refer the matter of apportionment of the amount of compensation to the Court. Under the statutory provision, such stage reaches when the Collector Land Acquisition assesses the amount of compensation under the provisions of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Zanib Bibi v. Zainb Bibi & others 2015 SCR 830 (B)
  104. —Section 30—limitation—contention that there is no limitation for reference under section 30—According to the statutory provisions, once the Collector Land Acquisition competently determines the shares of the landowners and the persons who are entitled for compensation, and the award is issued, thereafter the reference under section 30 is not competent. If at all for the sake of arguments, the reference is deemed competent even then it has to be filed within reasonable time and it is not the spirit of law that the same can be filed at any time. Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Sadiq & others 2018 SCR 844 (C) 2016 SCR 1406 ref
  105. —Section 30—reference—limitation for—no limitation is provided for filing of reference under section 30—the reference should be filed within reasonable time—the exact definition of words ‘reasonable time’ has not been given in the law— the ‘reasonable time’ is to be so much time as is necessary under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case. Ghulam Nabi v. Rabia Begum & others 2022 SCR 735 (A) AIR 2001 SC 2990 ref.
  106. — Section 30—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908— Order VII, Rule 6—reference—limitation—delay— exemption from law—reference u/s 30 filed after a passage of 3 years on the ground that no notice was ever issued and respondents by practising fraud got the compensation in their names—neither source of information nor affidavit in support of this version filed under Order VII, Rule 6, CPC the appellants were under obligation to show the grounds upon which exemption from the law of limitation was claimed. Ghulam Nabi v. Rabia Begum & others 2022 SCR 735 (B)
  107. — Section 30—-limitation—fixation of—reference u/s 30 should be filed within reasonable time— to avoid any sort of complication, fixation of period of limitation in the statutory provision, seems to be judicious matter sent to Law Department to be placed before competent forum for proper legislation. Ghulam Nabi v. Rabia Begum & others 2022 SCR 735 (C)
  108. —section 48—de-award of land—equal treatment—acquired land—possession remained with land owners— land neither used  by WAPDA for the purpose it was acquired, nor proved that there is any other approved scheme for its utilization—Held: the appellants have a right to be treated in the like manner at par with those persons in favour of whom the land was de-awarded.  Usman Ali Khizer & others  v. WAPDA & others 2017 SCR 1  (B) 
  109.                                                     —section 48—de-award of land—equal treatment—a fundamental right— Chief Engineer WAPDA itself surrendered the land to the authorities for de-awarding in favour of the previous owners and the land was also allotted/sold to different non- owners—Held: The appellants have a right to be treated fairly and justly in the like manner as the cases of other people have been treated. Usman Ali Khizer & others  v. WAPDA & others 2017 SCR 1  (C)  Abdul Majeed and others vs. AJK Govt. and others (Civil Appeal No. 252 of 2014, decided on 7.4.2016) rel.
  110. S. 50 of the Land Acquisition Act amended vide amending Act XX of 1995 with retrospective effect from 1st January, 1994, and the proviso to sub-clause(2) has been omitted, which implies that after the amendment, the authority for whose benefit the land is acquired is also competent to file and appeal.  Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Mst. Razia Farooqi & others 1996 SCR 136 (A)
  111. S. 50(2) has been amended — The University or any other Institution in whose favour the land has been acquired is now fully competent to use or defend itself and is competent to lodge the reference or appeal. AJ&K University v. Mir Alam and 43 others 2002 SCR 292 (A)
  112. S. 51 — Any award or agreement made under Land Acquisition Act shall not be chargeable with any stamp duty and any person who is claiming under any such award or agreement and obtains the copy of award or agreement, shall be exempted from paying any fee — Normally stamp duty is charged on instruments like awards and agreements under Stamp Act — S. 51 specifically exempted the award and agreements from charging the stamp duty. Ch. Muhammad Suleman v. Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam Raising Project & 9 others 2010 SCR 106 (A)
  113. S. 51 — S. 51 exempts a person claiming under award or agreement that he shall be issued copy of the same without charging the fee. Ch. Muhammad Suleman v. Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam Raising Project & 9 others 2010 SCR 106 (B)
  114. S. 53 — The C.P.C. is applicable and only those provisions of C.P.C. are excluded which may be inconsistent with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Chief Engineer & another v. Anwar Begum & 9 others 2009 SCR 199 (G)
  115. S. 54 — There has been a common practice to file petitions for leave to appeal instead of direct appeals — This Court has also been allowing such petitions — There is no limitation fixed for such appeals either in Supreme Court Rules or in the Land Acquisition Act — Petitions treated as appeals. Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shafi Khan and 4 others 1999 SCR 291 (A)
  116. S. 54 — Appeals against the judgment of Reference Judge are filed — From award or from any part of it — Award although is not defined in Act — The form of award is provided in section 26 of the Act — Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statements of ground of every such award shall be the judgment within the meaning of section 2(2) and section 2(9) C.P.C. Azad Govt. of the State of J&K v. Muhammad Rafique Khan 2009 SCR 320 (A)
  117. Appeals from decree passed by Reference Judge are filed under section 54 read with section 100 C.P.C. and not under section 51 of Land Acquisition Act. Ch. Muhammad Suleman v. Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam Raising Project & 9 others 2010 SCR 106 (C)
  118. S. 54 — Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 — S. 42(11)(12) — appeal to Supreme Court in acquisition proceedings — objection that direct appeal lies u/s 54 to Supreme Court — petition for leave to appeal is not competent — under section 54, appeal lies to Supreme Court subject to provisions contained in section 110, CPC and Order XLV thereof.  The words ‘Supreme Court’ have been substituted for the words ‘Majesty in Council’ by the amending Ordinance, 1961— In Azad Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was adapted and enforced through Adaptation of Laws Act, 1959 — u/s 54 adapted in AJ&K, an appeal lies to the High Court from an award or part of the award of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal, an appeal shall lie to ‘Majesty in Council’ subject to the provisions contained in section 110, CPC and Order XLV, thereof.  The words ‘Majesty in Council’ have been substituted by the words ‘Supreme Court’ in the year 1961 in Pakistan much later after the adaptation of Act in Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The words ‘Majesty in Council’ have not been substituted or amended in AJ&K.  Held: after the enforcement of AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 under section 42(11) direct appeal lies to the Supreme Court, if the value of the subject matter in the Court of first instance as well as in the High Court is not less than fifty thousand rupees and the High Court has varied or altered the judgment/decree of the Court immediately below and in all other matters where direct appeal is not competent, a petition for leave to appeal can be filed under section 42(12) of Act, 1974. WAPDA & others v. Taj Begum and others 2014 SCR 588 (A) 1999 SCR 291, distinguished.
  119. Section 54 — appeal to this Court in the matter of land acquisition — the case reported as Govt. of Pakistan v.  Muhammad Shafi Khan and others [1999 SCR 291] wherein, on an objection that appeal u/s 54 lies to this Court, the Court while acting in misconception that the words “Majesty in Council” in the original section 54 have been substituted by the words “Supreme Court” has held that direct appeal lies to this Court. The Act referred in that case was of the Act enforced in Pakistan.  Held: the judgment was delivered due to this misconception and it was observed that there has been a common practice of filing PLAs instead of direct appeal.  The petitions were treated as appeals. WAPDA & others v. Taj Begum and others 2014 SCR 588 (G)
  120. A Govt. functionary is not supposed to determine the feasibility of the land proposed to be acquired in accordance with his wish and whims. Ch. Walayat Khan  v. Ch. M. Azam 1995 SCR 384 (D)
  121. Use of acquired land — If some land remains surplus after utilizing its main part for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Government is at liberty to use such surplus land as it desires — Even if such surplus land is sold by the Government or used for a purpose which is not in any way related to the original ‘public purpose’ the award for that matter the acquisition proceedings are not adversely affected. Azad J&K Govt. v. Gohar Rehman and others 1996 SCR 112 (D) PLD 1961 Lah. 696, AIR 1970 Mysore 185, AIR 1964 Madras 115, AIR 1975USJC 934 relied.
  122. If after completing the original ‘public purpose’ there remains any surplus land, that can be utilised by the Government according to its option — In such an eventuality, the original title of the Government or for that matter the award is not adversely affected. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Govt. v. Gohar Rehman and others 1996 SCR 112 (E)
  123. Assessment of market value of the land — While assessing the market value, land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use for which it was being made at the relevant time but also the use to which it can reasonable be put in future. Faiz Akbar Khan & others v. Azad Government and others 1996 SCR 132 (A)
  124. Assessment of market value of the land — If the geographical position of the land acquired is such that it has the potential for being put to the use for business or the same can be used for the construction of the residential accommodation, the market value of the land can be based even on the sale deeds which pertain to smaller portion of land. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Mst. Razia Farooqi & others 1996 SCR 136 (C)
  125. Compensation — Market value — Price of small piece of land cannot form basis of market value of big tracts of land. M. Sharif and 7 others v. Azad Govt. and another 1997 SCR 351 (D)
  126. Compensation — Market value — Determination of — If the land is sold for higher price for its peculiar location it does not mean that all lands in the same vicinity must be assessed at the same rate. Muhammad Sharif and 7 others  v. Azad Govt. and another 1997 SCR 351 (E)
  127. Compensation — Prayer for — Demand was that the compensation be paid at the rate of twenty two thousand per Kanal — Demand subsequently raised, not permissible under law. Muhammad Sharif and 7 others v. Azad Govt. and another 1997 SCR 351 (C)
  128.  Market value — Assessment of. Muhammad Sharif and 7 others  v. Azad Govt. and another 1997 SCR 351 (B), 1996 SCR 132 and PLD 1986 (SC )158 relied.
  129.  Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to reference proceedings before Distt. Judge — It was incumbent upon the Addl. District Judge to frame issues and giving the parties opportunity to lead evidence and decide the case according to law — The judgments of the High Court and the Addl. District Judge were set aside — Case remanded for decision afresh according to law. Azad Government and 2 others v. Altaf Hussain Shah 2000 SCR 255 (A)
  130. The designated Court (Reference Judge) has jurisdiction to determine whether a reference placed before it is a valid reference or not. Azad Govt. v. Riaz Ahmed & another 2007 SCR 468 (A)
  131. The designated Court jurisdiction to determine the validity or otherwise of the reference sent to it by the Collector. Azad Government and 3 others  v. Riaz Ahmed & another 2007 SCR 468 (B)
  132. The application for reference has to be filed with Collector within six weeks from the date of award — The period of limitation for filing of reference is six weeks to be computed from the date of award till the date it is presented to the Collector and not to the Court. Azad Government and 3 others  v. Riaz Ahmed & another 2007 SCR 468 (E)
  133. A land or any other property can be acquired for public purpose by resorting to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act — Likewise owners of land have rights to object to acquisition proceedings by challenging the validity of action taken by public functionaries. Mirpur Development Authority and 3 others v. Ch. Aarif Najeeb & 13 others 2007 SCR 545  (A)
  134. The Reference Court keeping in view the overall scheme of law relating to acquisition proceedings and the provisions of Chap.III read with section 53, can adjudicate on the point of limitation and decide the same either way while examining as to whether the reference filed before it is a valid reference, one of the conditions of which is to find as to whether the same has been filed within the period of limitation provided by proviso to S. 18. Government of Pakistan and another v. Syed Ghulam Haider Shah and 5 others 2007 SCR 175 (G)
  135. Acquisition of land — When it is established that the acquired land has a potential to be used as commercial — Then the market price has to be determined keeping in view the commercial price of land.  Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Abdur Razzaq & 6 others 2008 SCR 505 (A) 1999 SCR 291, 1996 SCR 132 & 1996 SCR 136 rel.
  136. C.P.C. is applicable in reference proceedings — Argument that there are contradictory judgments in respect of application of C.P.C. — Held: Is misconceived. Chief Engineer & another v. Anwar Begum & 9 others 2009 SCR 199 (A)
  137. Determination of compensation — Learned Judge in High Court fixed price of land as Rs.1,20,000/-per kanal on the basis of his own observations — Held: The price is to be fixed keeping in view the evidence of parties. Azad Govt. v. M. Nazar Khan others 2009 SCR 479 (B)
  138. Limitation of — Finding of High Court that Reference Judge could not declare a reference application as time barred rather this is the prerogative and authority of Collector Land Acquisition to decide the point of limitation — Held: This finding is not correct — Held further: While determining the point of limitation the first requirement is to examine whether the appellant was present personally or through his advocate when the Collector issued the award and that in case the party was not present — The limitation for filing a reference is 6 months. Azad Government v. Muhammad Nazar Khan & 9 others 2009 SCR 479 (A)
  139. Original owner demanded Rs.1,00,000/= as price of land — Held: The High Court could not fix per kanal compensation as Rs.1,20,000/- — Price of land fixed as Rs.1,00,000/- per kanal — Increase granted by High Court recalled to the extent of Rs.20,000/-per kanal. Azad Government v. Muhammad Nazar Khan & 9 others 2009 SCR 479 (C)
  140. The first condition for determining the market value of the land is that it shall be determined at the time of notification under section 4 of the Act. Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Muhammad Rafique Khan 2009 SCR 320 (E)
  141. The purpose of reference is to hold an inquiry on the basis of documents which are submitted either before the Collector or before the District Judge — A strict view cannot be taken in such like cases. Chief Engineer & another v. Anwar Begum & 9 others 2009 SCR 199 (H)
  142. An area may be ‘Banjar’ or ‘Barani’ but its market value may be higher than ‘Mera Awal’ or ‘Hail’ due to its location, neighbourhood and potentiality etc. — All these factors have to be considered while determining the market value of land — Other considerations have also been provided in law, which would also be relevant for determining the market value of land owners, whose land has been compulsorily acquired. Abdul Aziz  v.  Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 47 (E)
  143. It is the fundamental duty of the Court to assess the potential value of the property — Factor regarding determination of market value of the land is restricted only the time of issuance of notification or any period prior to it — But can also relate to the period in future — It is for the reason that the potential value of the land, i.e., the use to which it could be put in future, should also be considered — Schedule of average price of 3 years or even for one year is not only the criterion for determining the amount of compensation but other material brought on record is also quite relevant — Mere one year’s average price of land in the same  vicinity or mere classification, nature and kind of land may be taken as relevant consideration, but not as an absolute. Abdul Aziz  v.  Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 47 (D)
  144. Where lands are not transferred through mutual negotiation, but under the power of State conferred upon it and the land owners are deprived of their land, then they are entitled to maximum possible benefits — Courts have to be liberal and generous in the fixing the quantum of compensation based on different considerations so that neither the land owner is deprived of his due right nor the acquiring agency is unduly burdened in the transaction. Abdul Aziz  v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 47 (G)
  145. While assessing the market value of land, the land should not be valued merely by reference to use for which it was being made at the relevant time, but also the use for which it can reasonably be put in future. Abdul Aziz  v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 47 (H)
  146. While Determining compensation the Court has not only to fix the compensation according to the market rate at the particular time, but it has also to keep in consideration the future value of land. Abdul Aziz  v.  Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 47 (I)
  147.  Word ‘compensation’ has very wide meaning — Compensation means counter balancing rendering of equivalent, requital, weighing one thing against another, but it does not mean weighing copper against gold — One cannot be compensated without requiting equivalent money. Abdul Aziz  v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2010 SCR 47 (B) PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 450 rel.
  148. Compensation — determination of — the best evidence in determining the compensation can be the sale-deeds executed in the village from where the land was acquired — If no sale-deed in that village during the period of one year prior to issuance of notification u/s 4 is available, then the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of average market value of the land situated in the adjacent villages. Sabir H. v. Collector Land Acquisition 2015 SCR 608 (A)   2013 SCR 635 rel.
  149. Market value — determination of — the sale-deeds registered after issuance of notification u/s 4 and prior to issuance of award are valid pieces of evidence and have to be considered for determination of the market value— The market value of the land has to be determined while keeping in view not only the sale-deeds registered immediately before the issuance of notification u/ s 4 but also the sale-deeds registered after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sabir Hussain v. Collector Land Acquisition 2015 SCR  608 (B)  2013 SCR 70 &WAPDA vs. Muhammad Hussain & others (Civil Appeal No.217/2014, decided on 18.03.2015) ref.
  150. Market value — determination of — While determining the market value of the land being acquired, consideration of the sale-deeds registered during the period of one year prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 is not a sole criteria — the sale-deeds executed immediately after issuance of notification u/ s 4 and before the issuance of award shall also be considered—The market value of the land should not be valued merely by reference to the use for which it was being acquired at the relevant time but also the use to which it can reasonably be put in future — Apart from sale-deeds of the land registered one year prior to issuance of notification u/ s 4, the other factors shall also be considered. Sabir Hussain v. Collector Land Acquisition 2015 SCR 608 (C) 2013 SCR 1224 rel.
  151. Market value — the Collector is also required to consider the use of the land for which it can be utilized in future. Sabir Hussain v. Collector Land Acquisition 2015 SCR 608 (D)  PLD 1986 SC 158, 1996 SCR 132, 1996 SCR 136 & 2013 SCR 1224 ref.
  152. Market value — determination of — The market value of the land is such price on which the owner of the land is ready to sell and willing buyer is ready to purchase. Sabir Hussain v. Collector Land Acquisition 2015 SCR 608 (E)
  153. Market value — Determination of — the best method for determination of the market value of the land is to take into consideration the sale-deeds pertaining to the same village, which have been registered prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 or immediately thereafter — the reliance upon the sale-deeds registered during the period; one year, prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 is not a sole criteria rather the sale-deeds registered after the issuance of the notification under section 4 are also relevant and the compensation has to be assessed in the light of the said sale-deeds. Malik M. Yousf v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 712 (A) 
  154. Market value — determination of — the sale-deeds of small pieces of land can validly be relied upon for determination of the market value for the purpose of determination of compensation. Malik Muhammad Yousf v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 712 (C)
  155. Acquisition of land — compulsory acquisition charges — rate of — contention that land acquired for company, compulsory acquisition charges may be awarded @ 25% — No provision for payment of 25% compulsory acquisition charges in case of acquisition of land for company, under Land Acquisition Act is in force in AJ&K — amendment brought in Pakistan is not adapted — held: 15% compulsory acquisition charges are applicable in AJ&K. Muhammad Hussain & another v. Collector Land Acquisition & another 2016 SCR 841 (A)
  156. Assessment for market value  — duty of Collector — assessment made by a Committee — not recognized by law — the examination of contents of award reveals that the collector Land Acquisition in paragraph 2 of the award has himself admitted that the average price of the land of the village at the relevant time was Rs. 24,230/- per marla that is Rs.4, 84,600/- per kanal but he has issued the award on the basis of assessment made by some Committee. It is suffice to observe that according to the statutory provision of law dealing with the subject-matter it is the duty of the Collector to assess the market value of the land and the assessment made by any committee is not recognized by law. Collector Land Acquisition v. M. Taj & others 2016 SCR 1009 (A)
  157. Market value — Determination of — every case has to be decided according to its own record. The High Court has not made proper appreciation of evidence produced in record and merely reproduced the findings recorded in some other case. Admittedly, in this case three sale-deeds are referred and relied upon by the land-owner as is established from the record. According to these sale-deeds, the average price per kanal comes to Rs. 22,01,582/- per kanal. Same like, according to the valuation table the value is fixed as Rs. 22,00,000/-per kanal. The compensation amount determined by High Court as 23,98,000 is against evidence, hence reduced to 23,00000. WAPDA v. Anseer Mehmood & 5 others 2016 SCR 1456 (B)  2015 SCR 712 rel.
  158. Assessment, measurement, compensation of land — determination of — duty of collector — alien committee stands nowhere — so far as the reliance made by the Collector Land Acquisition on a report of some alien committee is concerned, counsel for the respondents has rightly argued that according to the enforced law, such committees are alien to the enforced law, such committees are alien and not recognized by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or the Rules made thereunder. It is basically duty of the Collector Land Acquisition to finalize the material proposition such like as measurement of the acquired land or property, its market value, just compensation and apportionment thereof. Azad Govt. & 6 others v. Waheed Akber &  others 2016 SCR 1584 (A)
  159. Market value of the land — collector cannot assess the same — less than the one determined by him on basis of average price — The Collector Land Acquisition has clearly recorded that the market value of the land at the relevant time was Rs.24230/- per marla, the learned Reference Judge has rightly , while deciding the reference considered this aspect and enhanced the compensation . We have already in this regard in case, titled, “Collector Land Acquisition & others vs. Muhammad Taj & others (civil appeal No. 14/2016, decided on 16.5.2016), while dealing with the identical proposition held that the Collector’s findings regarding market value in the award are of importance and the Collector cannot assess the market value less than that he has determined on the basis of average price of the acquired property. Azad Govt. & 6 others v. Waheed Akber & 2 others 2016 SCR 1584 (B) Collector Land Acquisition & others vs. Muhammad Taj & others, civil appeal No. 14/2016, decided on 16.5.2016 rel. 
  160. —compensation—enhancement of—on strength of other case—rule of consistency—and principle of equality—the High Court enhanced  the amount of  compensation on strength of another case— which was relating to the land of same village and arising out of same award—in absence of any documentary evidence—merely on basis of oral evidence—argument: appellant is entitled to enhancement—under rule of consistency and principle of equality—Held:  the High Court was not justified to enhance the amount of compensation merely on the strength of another case. WAPDA v. Muhammad Ramzan Datt & others 2017 SCR 877 (B)
  161. —compensation—enhancement of—findings of collector in award—admitted the preciousness of land—its being situated within limits of Municipal Corporation—and near to Mirpur City—enhancement made by the High Court—meets ends of justice—appeals of the aggrieved of award and that of the Wapda dismissed. WAPDA v. Muhammad Ramzan Datt & others 2017 SCR 877 (C)
  162. —market value—defined—the word ‘market value’ has been interpreted in a number of pronouncements by this Court that it means the value on which the owner is ready  to sell and the land to a willing buyer. Chief Engineer Electricity & others v. Rehana Kousar 2017 SCR 915 (A)
  163. —compensation—determination of—criteria—to look into future usage of the land—It is well settled that while determining the compensation it is the duty of the acquiring agency to look into the usage to which the acquired land can be put in future along with other factors. Chief Engineer Electricity & others v. Rehana Kousar 2017 SCR 915 (B)
  164. —-piratical law—acquisition of lands—not with consent of owners —rather under the power of the State—owners to get maximum possible benefit— It may be observed that where the lands are not acquired with the consent of the owners rather they have deprived of their lands under the powers of the State, the owners are entitled to get maximum possible benefits. Chief Engineer Electricity & others v. Rehana Kousar 2017 SCR 915 (C)
  165. —compensation of—acquired land—land of precious nature—though not proved the prayed amount— but proved that compensation determined not per market value—Although, the appellant has not proved that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.50,0000/- per marla but it has been proved that the land is precious in nature and the compensation has not been awarded to the landowner by the Collector according to the market value of the land. After the perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Reference Judge, we are of the view that the learned Reference Judge keeping in view that the market value of the land has rightly enhanced the compensation from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- per marl and the learned High Court has not committed any illegality while upholding the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Judge. Chief Engineer Electricity & others v. Rehana Kousar 2017 SCR 915 (D)
  166. —Freezing & attaching of  Collector’s accounts— status and role of Collector Land Acquisition—being only referee and not an interested person–Collector’s accounts cannot be frozen or attached— unless the approved funds are lying within his account—According to the statutory provisions, the Collector Land Acquisition is a referee. He is neither acquiring agency nor falls in the line of interested persons. Under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, his duty is only to disburse the funds provided by the concerned agency/authority on completion of award proceedings or in compliance of judgments of Court as compensation or enhanced compensation. The Collector Land Acquisition has to perform his functions in relation to different acquisition matters and his account cannot be freezed or attached for satisfaction of the decrees unless according to law the approved amount of compensation relating to subject-matter of the decree is lying with him. If it is proved that the amount of funds of the subject-matter has been specifically provided and lying with the Collector Land Acquisition then to the extent of such amount, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may pass order but as in this case the Court has passed order of freezing of the accounts of the Collector Land Acquisition and not reliant to the property, subject –matter of the case, thus the order has been righty set-aside by t learned High court falling for no interference in view of hereinabove observations. Development Authority v. Syed Mazhar-ul-Hassan Gillani 2017 SCR 276(A)
  167. —duty of acquiring agency—provision of sufficient funds for payment of compensation—according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is the duty of the acquiring agency or the legal person for whom the property has been acquired , to provide sufficient funds for the compensation to be paid to the land-owners. Development Authority v. Syed Mazhar-ul-Hassan Gillani 2017 SCR 276 (B)
  168. –market value of plot—urban land—distance of yards—may be of significant nature—for determining market value—land at main road and the land having no approach to main road—may have difference of millions of rupees in market value—It may be observed here that the distance of yards may make difference of millions in the market value of the property situate in the urban arias. The piece of land situate at the main road may be of a value many times higher as compared to the piece of the land which although is adjacent to road but has no a approach to main road.  Khalil Aziz  v. Collector Land Acquisition & others.  2017 SCR 929 (A)
  169. —market value of plot—mere tendering of transfer orders—of other plots not sufficient—landowner has to prove—location, nature, kind or potential value same—as of plots sold under transfer orders— mere tendering of the transfer orders of the other plots is not sufficient until and unless the landowner has not proved that the acquired land is location wise similar and Its nature, kind or potential value is same as that of the transacted plots. Khalil Aziz  Khan v. Collector Land Acquisition 2017 SCR 929 (B)
  170. —land acquisition—in piratical way—without consent of the landowners—under power of state—effectees of land acquisition entitled to—get maximum possible benefits— rhls court time and again has observed that here the lands are not acquired with the consent of the owners rather they have been deprived of their lands under the powers of the state, the owners are entitled to get maximum lJossibie benefits. After evidence available on record, we are satisfied that the learned High court has already extended the maximum possible benefit to the landowner while making enhancement. Furthermore, it shows that no misreading/non-reading or violation of law has been committed by the High Court while passing the same. Khalil Aziz  v. Collector Land Acquisition & others.  2017 SCR 929 (C)
  171. —Valuation Table—Prepared under the Stamps Act, 1899—sole criterion for determining the compensation of land acquired by the Govt.—the same was held as relevant for such purpose as a decisive factor— It may be observed here that although the valuation table cannot be made sole criterion for determining the compensation in every case, however, in the instant case keeping in view the findings recorded by the Collector and the peculiar facts of the case the same was very much relevant to be considered as a decisive factor. Rehmat Ali & another vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 565 (B)
  172. —Natural Justice—Public interest—land              acquisition—Valuation  Table—-prepared           under    the         Stamps Act, 1899—realization of taxes and duties on transfers of lands by the Govt.— on basis of (high) prices as fixed in valuation table—whereas, compensation of same lands in case of acquisition/awards is paid at lower rates—declared as double standard of the authorities. And against the natural justice— Here we would also like to observe that we are conscious about the fact that the purpose of issuance of valuation table under the provisions of The Stamps Act, 1899, is that the Government may realize the stamp duty and the taxes at a fixed rate on the transaction of alienation of the lands in the area according to the value specified in the valuation table and if any sale-deed is executed lower than the rate specified in the valuation table even then the Government imposes the stamp duty and taxes according to the value fixed. Amazingly, the Government functionaries at the time of levying duty and imposition taxes on the transactions of alienation of lands show the market value of the land situate in the concerned area high but at the time of awarding compensation to the landowners/ affectees determine the same lower than the value of the land shown in the valuation table. It is clearly an example of double standard adopted by the authorities which is against the concept of natural justice and public interest, hence, cannot be approved. Rehmat Ali & another vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 565 (C)
  173. —evidence—mere tendering of sale deeds—not sufficient to prove claimed and prayed price and potential of land acquired—landowners have to prove that acquired land is location-wise similar and its nature, kind or potential value is same as that of land sold through the sale deeds brought on record. Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq & others vs Collector Land Acquisition & others 2018 SCR 1120 (A)
  174. —determination of compensation of acquired land— collector assessed less value of acquired land as compared to the price which he himself discussed in award regarding lands sold through the sale deeds—a lot of difference between value assessed and price of sold land—no evidence by collector to justify less compensation as compared to the one he himself admitted—High Court rightly enhanced the compensation. Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq & others vs Collector Land Acquisition & others 2018 SCR 1120 (B)
  175. —Market value— determination of—first sale-deed executed prior to issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, — the second one has been executed after issuance of notification u/s 4, but before the finalization of the award. Held: As per settled law, this sale-deed cannot be ruled out from consideration and the court can determine the market value of the land while considering the same. WAPDA & others vs Muhammad Azam & others 2018 SCR 1285 (A)
  176. —Compensation—determination of—first sale-deed executed in the adjacent village—relied upon—in presence of the sale-deeds of the same village for determination of the compensation—is an arbitrary exercise of powers because in presence of the sale-deeds of the same village other evidence cannot be considered. WAPDA & others vs Muhammad Azam & others 2018 SCR 1285 (B) 2015 SCR 608 and 2015 SCR 712 rel
  177. —Valuation table—consideration of—for determination of the compensation—Held: that valuation table alone cannot be considered for determination of the compensation, however, the same has the evidentiary value and can be considered along with the other available evidence on the record. WAPDA & others vs Muhammad Azam & others 2018 SCR 1285 (C)
  178. —Collector—nature of—proceedings—the proceedings conducted by the Collector Land Acquisition are akin to an inquiry and he has based his conclusion on the basis of entries made in the revenue record. Arshad Mehmood v. Farzand Bibi & others 2019 SCR 622 (B)
error: Content is protected !!