Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 MLD 942
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Parties: The Board of Revenue Punjab vs Ibrar HussainHonorable Justice Mirza Viqas RaufMalik Amjad Ali,Attaullah H. Kundi
This judicial decision was delivered by the Lahore High Court. The matter involves proceedings between The Board of Revenue Punjab and Ibrar HussainHonorable Justice Mirza Viqas RaufMalik Amjad Ali,Attaullah H. Kundi, officially reported as 2026 MLD 942. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
305
2026 M L D 942 [Lahore (Rawalpinidi Bench)] Before Mirza Viqas Rauf and Jawad Hassan, JJ The Board of REvenue Punjab and others---Petitioners Versus Ibrar Hussain and others---Respondents R.F.A No. 154 of 2021, heard on 26th January, 2026. (a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) --- ----S.23--- Acquisition of land --- Determination and enhancement of compensation --- Cross appeals by landowners and beneficiary department --- Assessment of compensation --- Factors to be considered --- Scope --- Land in question was acquired through proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; on references under S.18 thereof, the Trial Court decided the matter, against which cross-appeals were filed by the landowners and beneficiary department---Issue was whether the compensation awarded for the acquired land was correctly determined in accordance with law and the prevailing market value---Held: Market value was only one of such factors to be considered for the purpose of award of compensation to the landowners --- Location, neighborhood, potentiality or other benefits which might ensue from the land in future could not ignored --- Keeping in view the mutations brought on record, the landowners had rightly been entitled for the compensation of their land as Rs.500,000/- per kanal---Present appeal as well as connected appeal filed by the appellants and the beneficiary department were dismissed, whereas, appeals preferred by landowners was partly allowed, in circumstances. (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) --- ---- S.23 --- Determination of compensation --- Salient features --- (i) market value of land at the prevalent time and its potential; (ii) one year average of sale taken place before publication of notification under S.4 of the Act of the similar land; (iii) its likelihood of development and improvement; (iv) a willing purchaser would pay to a willing buyer in an open market arms length transaction entered into without any compulsion; (v) loss or injury occurred by severing of acquired land from other property of the land owner; (vi) loss or injury by change of residence or place of business and loss of profit; (vii) delay in the consummation of acquisition proceedings and; (viii) peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. (c) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) --- ---- S.4 --- Compulsory acquisition of land --- Right of general public over an individual land owner --- Scope --- Through the process of acquisition a landowner is to be deprived of his property which is a stringent step but right of an individual cannot take precedence upon the right of general public --- Acquisition of land is always meant for the benefit of large segment of society at the altar of rights of a specific group of society or the individual. (d) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) --- ---- Ss.28 & 34 --- Acquisition of land --- Right to hold property not absolute --- Deprivation of land --- Compensatory safeguards --- Award of interest --- Scope --- Right of a citizen to hold property is not unfettered and unbridled but it is always subject to the law of land --- In order to provide reasonable protection to the proprietary rights of a citizen whole land is to be acquired, the legislature inserted Ss.28 & 34 in the Act, 1894 wherein a landowner who has been deprived of her/her land is held entitled to receive interest in addition to the compensation amount. Malik Amjad Ali, Additional Advocate General Punjab and Miss Rahat Farooq Raja, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for Appellants. Barrister Ch. Imran Hassan Ali for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Attaullah H. Kundi for Proforma Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th January, 2026. JUdgment Mirza Viqas Rauf, J.---This judgment shall govern the titled appeal as well as R.F.As. Nos. 151 and 157 of 2021 as all these appeals are arising from award No. 131/AC/K dated 1st March, 2016 whereby land measuring 3437-kanal 07-marla situated in the revenue estates of Gora Rajgan, Beor, Bindla, Oterna, Soha and Narrar, Tehsil Kahuta, District Rawalpindi was acquired for construction of 720 MW Karot Hydropower Project (hereinafter referred to as "Project"). 2. Facts forming background of these appeals are that on the request of M/s Karot Power Company (Pvt) Limited hereinafter referred to as "Beneficiary department"), Land Acquisition Collector, Kahuta, District Rawalpindi (hereinafter referred to as "L.A.C") initiated the proceedings for acquisition of land for Project, by issuance of notification dated 14.04.2015 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), which was approved by the District Collector, and published in the Punjab Gazette on 29th April, 2015, declaring that the land measuring 3437-Kanal 07-Marla specified in the notification is required for the purpose of construction of Project. This followed a notification under sections 17(1) (4) and 6 of the Act, whereby provisions of sections 5 and 5-A of the Act were waived and L.A.C. was authorized under section 7 of the Act to take order for acquisition of the said land. After issuance of notices under sections 9 and 10 of the Act and observing other codal formalities, award in terms of section 11 of the Act was announced wherein compensation for the acquired land was determined in the following manner:-
Name of Village Kind of Land
Area Under Acquisition
Average price per kanal is Rs.
Proposed by DPAC per kanal in Rs.
Total Cost of Land in Rs.
Kanal
Marla
Gorha
All kind of land
1333
08
49,040/-
40,000/-
5,33,36,000/-
Beor/Bindla
-do-
1151
10
65,195/-
70,000/-
8,06,05,000/-
Soha
-do-
201
07
Nil
30,000/-
60,40,500/-
Otrina
-do-
134
02
Nil
30,000/-
40,23,000/-
Narrar
On the Road
302
18
13,589
80,000/-
2,42,32,000/-
Off the road
314
02
40,000/-
1,25,64,000/-
Total
3437
07
Total
18,08,00,500/-
25% Compulsory Acquisition Charges
4,52,00,125/-
Grand Total
The respective owners (hereinafter referred to as "landowners") feeling dissatisfied from the rate of compensation, placed their petition under section 18 of the Act before the L.A.C., who routed the same to the learned Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division), Rawalpindi, for decision, which was decided through the judgment dated 31 March, 2021, which is now impugned before us in these appeals under section 54 of the Act. Brief Background of R. F.A.No.154 of 2021 3. Through this appeal, the appellants are challenging the vires of judgment dated 31st March, 2021 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division), Rawalpindi, holding the landowners entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.500,000/- per kanal for all kinds of land and both the villages i.e. Beor and Ghora Rajgan along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest from the date of possession till the payment of compensation. Brief Background of R. F.A.No.151 of 2021 4. This appeal is on behalf of landowners arising out of same judgment dated 31st March, 2021 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division), Rawalpindi, seeking enhancement of rate of compensation awarded to them in the impugned judgment. Brief Background of R.F.A.No.157 of 2021 5. This appeal is on behalf of Beneficiary department against the same judgment, which is under challenge in R.F.A. No. 154 of 2021. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General Punjab, assisted by learned counsel for the Beneficiary department submitted that the rate determined by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division) is excessively high as compared to the prevailing market rates at the time of acquisition of land. Contended that value of the land owned by the landowners at that critical time was equal to the rate determined by the L.A.C. but the Referee Court proceeded to enhance the compensation without adverting to the evidence adduced by the Beneficiary department. Learned Law Officer contended that the compensation has been awarded to the landowners on excessive rates and the impugned judgment is not tenable at all. In the last, learned Law Officer submitted that provisions in the shape of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act are meant to safeguard the interest of landowners and they are, thus, not entitled to claim compensation on the basis of some other considerations. 7. Learned counsel representing landowners submitted that the compensation awarded to them was insufficient. Contended that landowners were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per Kanal, as the evidence on record clearly supported their claim. Submitted that L.A.C. as well as Referee Court failed to properly consider the relevant material, which is crucial for determining the actual value of the land, in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court from time to time. In order to supplement his contentions, learned counsel also took us to the relevant documentary evidence. 8. Heard. Record perused. 9. The process of acquisition of land measuring 3437-Kanal 07-Marla situated in Revenue Estates of Gora Rajgan, Beor, Bindla, Oterna, Soha and Narrar, Tehsil Kahuta, District Rawalpindi was launched on the request of the Beneficiary department for construction of the Project, meant for Company/public purposes, through notification dated 14.04.2015 under section 4 of the Act published in the gazette on 29th April, 2015 followed by notification under section 17 (1)(4) and 6 of the Act. The award was finally announced on 1st March, 2016 and the compensation was fixed as mentioned in para No.2 above. It would not be out of context to mention here that in these appeals, the subject matter of the land is forming part of revenue estates Gora Rajgan and Beor. 10. Being dissatisfied from the compensation determined by the L.A.C., the landowners filed their reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act before the L.A.C. which was ultimately placed before the learned Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division), Rawalpindi. The landowners claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per Kanal including the price of trees on the acquired land. In order to prove their claim, landowners produced oral evidence in the shape of witnesses namely Raja Muhammad Sattar Ullah as AW-I and Ibrar Hussain as AW-2 besides tendering documentary evidence in support thereof, mainly in the shape of sale mutations. 11. On the contrary, appellants examined Haroon-ur-Rasheed Durani as RW-1 and Zaid Ameer as RW-2, who also produced certain documents to rebut the claim of landowners. 12. After having appraised the evidence, learned Senior Civil Judge (Civil Division), Rawalpindi held entitled landowners for compensation at the rate of Rs.500,000/- per kanal for all kinds of land in both the villages i.e. Beor and Ghora Rajgan along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest from the date of possession till the payment of compensation. In order to evaluate the findings of the trial Court, we have also reappraised the evidence produced by both the sides with the assistance of learned counsel for the landowners, Beneficiary department as well as learned Law Officer. 13. Section 23 of the Act provides the mechanism for the determination of compensation for its award to the landowners in lieu of acquisition of their land. For ready reference and convenience, same is reproduced below: - "23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- Firstly, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1); Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof, Thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land. Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; Fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and Sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. (2) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the Court shall award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, if the acquisition has been made for a public purpose and a sum of twenty-five per centum on such market-value if the acquisition has been made for a Company. (3) For the purpose of clause first of sub-clause (1) of this section the market value of the land shall be determined on the basis of the average net income of that land for the five years preceding 1st September, 1961: Provided that if in any of these years that land or any portion of it has not been cultivated, the net income of such land or portion in that year shall be taken to be three times the land revenue assessed thereon, if no land revenue has been so assessed, three times the lowest rate of land revenue assessed on neighboring land: Provided further that in respect of land which is situated in town or village abadi or land which is attached to a house, manufactory, or other building and is reasonably required for the enjoyment and use of the house, manufactory, or building, the market-values shall be the market-value according to the use to which the land was being put on the 1st September, 1961." From the bare reading of the above provision, it is apparent that the intent of legislature was to give it wider scope so the factors for the purpose of determination of compensation cannot be restricted to some specific conditions. 14. The scope and object of Section 23 of the Act has continuously remained under consideration before the superior courts of the country. As a nutshell of discussion so far made upon the true import of Section 23 of the Act, its salient features outlined are as under:- (a) market value of land at the prevalent time and its potential; (b) one year average of sale taken place before publication of notification under section 4 of the Act of the similar land; (c) its likelihood of development and improvement; (d) a willing purchaser would pay to a willing buyer in an open market arms length transaction entered into without any compulsion; (e) loss or injury occurred by severing of acquired land from other property of the land owner; (f) loss or injury by change of residence or place of business and loss of profit; (g) delay in the consummation of acquisition proceedings and; (h) peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. 15. Section 23 of the Act, thus, does not restrict or hinge upon a single factor, rather it provides for various matters to be taken into consideration while determining compensation. We are mindful of the fact that initially, there was a trend that while determining the compensation, market value of the land at the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act was mainly taken into consideration but with the passage of time, law to this effect has gone under radical change and now the dominant factor is the potential value of the land. Market value is only one of such factors to be considered for the purpose of award of compensation to the landowners. Location, neighborhood, potentiality or other benefits, which may ensue from the land in future cannot be ignored. The most dominant and guiding factor would be that the compensation should be determined at the price, which a willing buyer would pay to a seller as per his satisfaction. But at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that compensation cannot be determined and awarded to the landowners as a bounty of state without taking into consideration the above noted salient features. 16. Taking into account the guiding principles, we when examined the evidence produced by both the sides, have noticed that compensation was claimed by the landowners in their reference petition @ Rs. 16,00,000/- per Kanal, in support whereof, they examined respondent No.2 as AW-1 and Ibrar Hussain as AW-2. In furtherance to the oral account, sale mutations for the relevant period were also tendered in evidence. In order to diminish the claim of the landowners, the appellants examined Haroon ur Rasheed Durani as RW-1 and Zaid Ameer as RW-2, who in their statements tried to justify the quantum of compensation awarded by the L.A.C. They also produced certain mutations in support thereof. From the joint analysis of the evidence produced by both the sides it is manifestly clear that sale mutations for the relevant period produced by both the sides indicate notable difference of price. 17. It appears that while determining the compensation of the acquired land, the Referee Court rested its findings on mutations of various dates tendered in evidence as Exh.A3, Exh.A4, Exh.A12 and Exh.A13 and an award Exh.A9. It is though contention of learned Law Officer that sale mutations tendered by the appellants especially. Exh.R17, Exh.R18 and Exh.R19 have not been considered at all and abridged aside without assigning any lawful reasoning but we are inclined to observe that if accumulative effect of all the mutations produced by both the sides is taken into consideration, the conclusion drawn by the Referee Court seems to be plausible. 18. So far award Exh.A9 is concerned, it was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sub-Division Sehnsa (Azad Jamu and Kashmir) whereby land was acquired by the Beneficiary department for the same project. Though that land is situated in Azad Jamu and Kashmir but it has come on record, especially in the statement of RW-1 that project in question has been established on river Jhelum for which land situated on both sides of the river has been acquired. The relevant extract from the statement of RW-1 is reproduced below: -
In addition to the above, we have also noticed that the landowners produced Exh.A14 (mutations No.87 dated 3rd November, 2015) in terms whereof the Beneficiary department itself itself purchased purchased land measuring 22-Kanal 6-Marla 168-feet from the private land owners in lieu of sale consideration of Rs.9287466/- i.e. at the average price of Rs.4,02,000/-per kanal. The landowners though heavily relied upon Exh.A4 (mutation No.1642 dated 16th May, 2016) wherein land measuring 9-Kanal 11-Marla was sold out @ Rs. 14,73,000/- per Kanal but this sole mutation cannot be made basis for determination of compensation as it is only one and that too after the award. Keeping in view the respective mutations brought on record by both the sides, we are of the considered view that the landowners have rightly been held entitled for the compensation of their land as Rs.500,000/- per Kanal. 19. We have noticed that the landowners also claimed compensation for trees, existing upon the acquired land at the time of acquisition but while examining the reference application, it is noticed that necessary details to that effect is not forthcoming and even number of trees have not been mentioned rendering the Referee Court unable to properly determine this aspect of the claim. Furthermore, the statements of the landowners are also bereft of any cogent material justifying the compensation for the purported dislodged trees during the acquisition proceedings. This was the reason that the Referee Court did not advert to this issue and rightly so. 20. Adverting to the contentions of landowners that while awarding the compensation, the potential value of the land should have been taken into consideration, we would like to observe that no exception can be drawn to this extent but as we have already observed that for determining the fair compensation, there are numerous factors, which are to be taken into consideration and the prime of which is undoubtedly the potential value, which will always be rested upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it would vary from case to case as well. We are mindful of the fact that through the process of acquisition, a landowner is to be deprived of his property which is a stringent step but right of an individual cannot take precedence upon the right of general public. Acquisition of land is always meant for the benefit of large segment of society at the altar of rights of a specific group of society or the individual. 21. Needless to observe that right of a citizen to hold property is not unfettered and unbridled but it is always subject to the law of land. In order to provide reasonable protection to the proprietary rights of a citizen whose land is to be acquired, the legislature inserted Sections 28 and 34 in the Act wherein a landowner who has been deprived of his/her land is held entitled to receive interest in addition to the compensation amount. So, keeping in view the said mandate, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, held the landowners entitled to get 8% compound charges along with compensation, which in all respects, is justifiable and according to law. As per section 23(2) of the Act, in addition to the market-value of the land as provided in subsection (1), the Court shall award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, if the acquisition has been made for a public purpose and a sum of twenty-five per centum on such market-value if the acquisition has been made for a Company. Since the acquisition has been made for a Company, so while granting compulsory acquisition charges, this important aspect has been ignored by the Referee Court. The landowners are, thus, entitled to 25% compulsory acquisition charges instead of 15% as were awarded by L.A.C in his award. 22. The nutshell of above discussion is that instant appeal as well as connected appeal (R.F.A No.157 of 2021) filed by the appellants and Beneficiary department are dismissed whereas the appeal preferred by the landowners is partly allowed with above-noted modification. No order as to costs. UN/B-4/L Appeals dismissed.