Compensation

  1. Enhancement of — Held: The compensation amount cannot be enhanced more than the amount prayed for in the reference application or proved through evidence. WAPDA Pakistan v. Naik Muhammad & others 2015 SCR 1568 (D) 2009 SCR 320 & 2009  SCR 479, rel. 
  2. —payment of—market value — of built-up property—the Collector despite accepting—cost of construction @ Rs. 2000/- per sq. ft.—and his personal house was built @ 1200/- per sq. ft.—awarded less amount—on ground of non-availability of sufficient amount—reliance upon personal experience—the Collector’s finding against law and norms of justice—The Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 23.04.2010, available on record as Ex.PG, apprised that the Government buildings are constructed at an average rate of Rs.2000/- per sq. ft. and the Collector himself in his findings admitted the referred cost. The Collector Land Acquisition after admitting the fact that the cost of construction is not less than Rs.2000/- per sq. ft., assigned the reasons for not awarding the compensation according to the said rates. the reasons assigned by the Collector Land Acquisition that sufficient amount is not available to make payment as per market value and the cost incurred upon his personal house come to Rs.1200/- per sq. ft., are not supported by law and against the norms of justice. Shams Shahzad v. WAPDA & others  2017 SCR 893 (B&C)
  3. — determination of—criterion—letter of Superintending Engineer PWD—report of concerned department—relevant documents—the Collector Land Acquisition recorded the findings on the application filed by some third persons and the appellant, herein, tendered the decision of the Collector and the letter of the Superintending Engineer in evidence. As in the relevant year the concerned department submitted the report that at present the cost incurred upon the construction is not less than Rs. 2000/- per sq. ft., and the Collector admitted the stance taken in the report, therefore, theses documents keeping in view the controversy involved in the matter can be considered as relevant for determining the compensation. The appeal accepted. The appellant declared entitled to the compensation of the acquired house @ Rs.2000/- per sq. ft.   Shams Shahzad v. WAPDA & others  2017 SCR 893 (E)
  4. —enhancement of—standard of evidence—No documentary evidence of the transaction of the property in the village from where the land acquired was produced—the oral statements are vague and general hearsay nature—Award Exh.PC, of village tendered but no accurate deposition is made that the subject matter of the land acquired land through Exh.PC, is of the similar nature and located in the same vicinity—No evidence rebutting the findings of collector recorded in the award—Held:the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded findings that the village “S” is situated on the other side of the river and village ‘N’ is situated at the side of the village, from where the land was acquired— The High Court rightly held that it will be more appropriate that the compensation be fixed while considering the market value of the land situated in village ‘N’ the nearest village. Manzoor Khan vs Collector Land Acquisition 2018 SCR 921  (A)
  5.  — determination of —valuation table —the valuation table cannot be made sole criterion for determining the compensation, but the same can be considered as one of the relevant factor coupled with others. Hameeda Begum  v. Collector Land Acquisition2019 SCR 167 (A) 2015 SCR 712 & 2018 SCR 565 rel
  6. —Determination of—each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances — compensation cannot be determined/enhanced on the strength of the judgment delivered in another case rather the Court have to consider the material brought on record in every case for determining the compensation.  MWAPDA  v. Akram Hussain & others 2019 SCR 172 (D)
  7.  —compensation cannot be determined or enhanced on strength of other case—each case has its own peculiar facts–argument: The High Court in a case of adjacent land, acquired for AIMS, had enhanced and fixed the compensation as Rs.12,00,000/- per kanal, therefore, the landowners were also entitled for the same relief. Held: each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and compensation cannot be determined/enhanced on strength of the judgment delivered in another case. Syed Abid Ali Gillani v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 452 (B) 2018 SCR 172 rel
  8. –Land acquisition–preponderance of probability–Land as claimed in evidence, situate within the municipal limits and potential value is much higher than the assessed by the Collector. Not an iota of evidence to rebut the same. Though sole reliance cannot be placed on the one year average price, but when considered coupled with other material and fact of non-rebuttal of same by other side, the same creates preponderance of probability in favour of the landowners and further enhancement in the compensation is justified. Syed Abid Ali Gillani v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 452 (D)
  9. —land acquisition—reliance upon other case wherein compensation was enhanced on basis of valuation table—Held: each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and mere on the strength of findings of facts recorded in any other case, the compensation cannot be enhanced. WAPDA v. Muhammad Taj & others 2019 SCR 460 (A)
  10. —Land acquisition—payment of escalation charges—of brick kiln—ground not taken before the Collector—cannot raised before the Reference Judge or the High Court—-the record shows that except the respondent-owner, all the other owners of the brick kilns specifically raised the objections before the Collector Land Acquisition that 20 % escalation charges may be awarded instead of 10.92%. The respondent-owner, in his objections filed before the Collector only claimed the compulsory acquisition charges to the tune of 25%, instead of 15%, may be awarded. He has never objected to or demanded for enhancement in the escalation charges, thus, under the settled principle of law enunciated by the superior Courts, if a ground for enhancement is not raised in the objections before the Collector the same cannot be made a fresh ground before the Reference Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, for enhancement in the compensation. Chief Engineer/P. D v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 2019 SCR 498 (A)
  11. —Award of—the land owner cannot be deprived of the fair compensation where the land is acquired compulsorily.  Arshad Mehmood v. Farzand Bibi & others 2019 SCR 622 (D) PLD 2004 SC 512 rel
  12. —determination of—the Courts are not bound to rely only upon one sale-deed while ignoring the others. M. Amin & 3 others v.  Azad Govt. & 23 others2020 SCR  66 (A)
  13.  —enhancement of—mere uncorroborated demand of rupees by the land owners cannot be made a sole ground for enhancement of compensation rather the Court has to evaluate all the evidence and relevant factors for determination of just & fair compensation. M. Amin & 3 others v.  Azad Govt. & 23 others2020 SCR  66 (B)
  14. —determination of— M. Amin & 3 others v.  Azad Govt. & 23 others2020 SCR  66 (H)
  15. —Determination of— valuation table cannot be made sole criterion for determining compensation but the same can be considered one of the relevant factors coupled with others–Supreme Court  disapproved the fixation of compensation much lower than the rate shown in the valuation table—the Govt.at the time of levying duty and imposing 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 determine the same lower than the value shown in the valuation table which is clearly an example of double standard adopted by the authorities. Secretary Higher Education & others v. Mst. Nazeera Begum & another 2022 SCR 43 (A) 2018 SCR 565 ref
  16. —Determination of — compensation has to be assessed on the basis of market value—market value is such a price against which an owner of land is ready to sell his land and willing purchaser is ready to purchase the same and such fact can be proved from the sale deeds. Tahir Mehmood Ayoub & another v. Collector Land Acquisition & others 2022 SCR 330 (A) 
  17. –Award of— the land owners should be compensated for various reasons, not merely by paying the price of the land, which is just an interaction of supply and demand fixed between a willing buyer and willing seller. Secretary PWD &others v. Azad Govt. 2022 SCR 482 (C)
  18. —Award of—writ—laches—-see Zia-ud-Din Abdul  Hameed    v. Azad Govt. & others  2022 SCR 588 (C)
  19. —Determination of—market value—land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the relevant time, but also by a reference to the use to which it may reasonably capable of being put in future—market value is the potential value of the 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 prevalent in the locality at that time— the price of the land acquired has to be fixed in accordance with the aim and rule that willing buyer is ready to pay and willing seller is ready to receive the price so fixed. WAPDA v. Ch. Muhammad Masoom & others  2022 SCR 883 (B)
  20. —Enhancement of— in presence of the sale-deed pertaining to the village wherein the acquired land situates, the sale-deed pertaining to the adjacent village cannot be considered for enhancement of compensation. Azad Govt. & others v. Imdad Ali Khan & others  2022 SCR 963 (A)
  21. —The compensation cannot be determined/enhanced even on the strength of judgment delivered in another case rather the Court has to consider the matter on record in each respective case. Azad Govt. & others v. Imdad Ali Khan & others  2022 SCR 963(B)
  22. —Enhancement of—See Azad Govt. & others v. Imdad Ali Khan & others 2022 SCR 963(C)
  23. —Term compensation defined—land acquisition—Held: the compensation is of very wiser term, indicating that the landowners, for various reasons are to be compensated and not merely paid the price of the land which is just and interaction of supply and demand fixed between a willing buyer and willing seller. WAPDA v. Muhammad Rasheed & others  2022 SCR 1080 (A)
  24. —Determination of compensation of acquired land—Held: 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 the property in the open market. WAPDA v. Muhammad Rasheed & others  2022 SCR 1080 (C)
  25. —Determination of compensation not mere on basis of past sale deeds—Held: Only the past sales should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determined by examining if necessary as Court witness, local property builders or others who are likely to know the price, the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. WAPDA v. Muhammad Rasheed & others  2022 SCR 1080 (D) PLD 2010 SC AJ&K 37 rel.
  26. — Receiving of compensation without protest               contention by the appellant’s counsel that respondents received compensation amount without protest, so reference was incompetent held: it is mentioned by the Collector that landowners raised a specific objection that the compensation of the acquired land is assessed comparatively less than market value which is a clear indication of the fact that the received the compensation with protest. Argument repelled. WAPDA v. Muhammad Rasheed & others  2022 SCR 1080 (F)
  27. —It is almost settled principle of law that each and every case has to be adjudged on the basis of its own peculiar facts. Abdul Hameed & others v. Azad Govt. & others  2022 SCR 1249 (B) 2019 SCR 452 and 2019 SCR 460 ref.
  28. — determination of — smaller pieces of land — the sale deeds executed in respect of the smaller pieces of land are also relevant for determination of market value and compensation. [WAPDA versus Muhammad Meharban & others 2023 SCR 631 (A) 2015 SCR 1190 rel.
  29. — determination of … the sale deeds executed immediately after issuance of notification under section 4 can also be considered for determination of compensation.  Muhamad Ashraf & 14 others versus Azad Government & 06 others 2023 SCR 636 (A) 2015 SCR 608
  30. — determination of market value — findings of Collector — Collector himself recorded findings that the nature of acquired land is of commercial nature — said findings have not been challenged at any forum, held: land owner has not been compensated according to the market value of the land.  Development Authority Muzaffarabad versus Raja Mukhtab Hussain & others 2023 SCR 786 (B)
  31. — compensation award and determination of — for assessment of compensation, the collector referred the matter to the District Price Assessment Advisory Committee, which has no legal backing — the said advisory committee has been declared unconstitutional and illegal in various judgments of Supreme Court — held: Collector awarded compensation in derogation of rule of law laid down by Supreme Court. Development Authority Muzaffarabad versus Raja Mukhtab Hussain & others 2023 SCR 786 (C)
  32. — determination of market value — land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put but also by a reference to the use to which it may reasonably capable of being put in future — the 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 prevalent in the locality at the time — the price of the land has to be fixed in accordance with aim and rule that willing buyer was ready to pay and willing seller was prepared to receive the price so fixed for the land —  Development Authority Muzaffarabad versus Raja Mukhtab Hussain & others 2023 SCR 786 (A)
  33. — grant of — when the lands are acquired without mutual agreement but under the authority of the State, and landowners are thus deprived of their property, they are entitled to receive maximum possible compensation. Courts are urged to be liberal and generous in determining the compensation taking various factors into consideration to ensure that the landowners receive their due right without unduly burdening the acquiring agency. Razia Bibi versus Azad Gov. & others 2023 SCR 658 (B)
  34. — Determination of — criterion — Reference Judge not considered the sale deeds executed prior to issuance of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act — held: the sale deeds executed prior to issuance of notification u/s 4, cannot be turned down merely because they were executed prior to acquisition of land — if the price of land sold 4 years prior to issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was so high then how the price of land in question can be assessed lesser than the price prevailing 4 years ago, especially so when Collector himself admitted that during the period 2004 to 2005, no sale deed pertaining to village ‘A’ was executed – — Director Education Planning Muzaffarabad vs Abdul Majeed & others 2024 SCR 255 (B) PLJ 2001 SC (AIK) 123, 1999 SCMR 1647, 2000 SCMR 870 & 2019 SCR 172 ref.
error: Content is protected !!