Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Sheikh MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS Respondent: THE MULTAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MULTAN JUDGMENT
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, Muhammad Akram Title:Sheikh MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THE MULTAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, MULTAN
JUDGMENT
Reported As: PLD 1972 Lahore 225 Result: A. Judgment JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.--This will dispose of the following 21 regular first appeals, 12 filed by the Multan Improvement Trust, Multan, and the nine appeals filed by the respective land--owners, all directed against the award dated the 26th of October 1966, made by the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, in respect of the compensation assessed for the lands acquired by the Trust:- R. F. A. 32-67, 33-67, 36-67, 14-67, 37-67, 15-67, 43-67, 16-67, 38-67, 17-67, 35-67, 18-67, 40-67, 19-67, 41-67, 29-67, 42-67, 30-67, 39-67, 31-67 and 34-67. 2. The Multan Improvement Trust framed a Development Scheme under sections 24 and 25 read with section 28 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, for the purposes of providing housing accommodation for middle class people. In this connection the usual notices under section 36 of the Act were published in the newspapers and the Government Gazette during December 1951- January 1952. In course of time the scheme was sanctioned by the Government under sections 41 and 42 of the Act and was notified in the Gazette Notifica--tion No. 1522-53/CNT, dated the 25th of May 1953. 3. This scheme was named as the "Development Scheme for the Middle Class Colony", popularly known as Shamshabad Colony situated on Multan-Khanewal Road, Multan. It is comprised of a total area of 83 acres 7 ka.Nals. Out of this an area of 57 acres 5 kanals and 4 marlas was evacuee property and with the approval of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, its market value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 5,120 per acre on the basis of five yearly average price of the sales in the estate. Out of the acquired land an area measuring 20 acres 6 kanals 1:0 marlas is situated in Taraf Mubarak Awal and the remaining 63 acres 1 kanal and 17 marlas in Taraf Mubarak Doem, Tehsil and District
---
## Page 2
Multan. But it may be mentioned here that there is no separate Hadbast for the two estates forming one Mauza only known as Taraf Mubarak, Tehsil and District Multan according to the revenue records. 4. The learned Land Acquisition Collector, Multan, by means of his award dated the 29th of May 1961, assessed the price for the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs. 5,120 per acre. He observed that the land in dispute comprised in the scheme is far removed from the walled city although it is situated in the vicinity of a few Improvement Schemes that have recently been set up. According to him the crucial date for the determination of the market value was 10th of October 1951, when this scheme was originally taken up. He found that the entire land comprised in the scheme is homogenous and forms one compact block and that it was neither desirable nor legal to employ different yardsticks for the acquired land situated in Taraf Mubarak Awal and Taraf Mubarak Doem and in his opinion the situation, nature, quantity and other attending circumstances were all similar. On the basis of quinquennial statements of sales separately prepared by the Patwari in respect of these two Tarafs, the learned Land Acquisition Collector observed that the average price per acre in Taraf Mubarak Awal was Rs. 11,150-13-4 and in Taraf Mubarak Doem Rs. 5,120 per acre. He generally observed in his award that Taraf Mubarak Awal is a much better situated area on account of its close vicinity to the Town of Multan and the area in dispute was situated on the farthest extremity more akin to the adjoining Taraf Mubarak Doem away from the city. In his opinion in urban and suburban areas the prices of the adjoining lands have to be considered rather than those in the entire estate. In conclusion, therefore, in applying a uniform scale for the whole of the acquired land, he assessed its market value at Rs. 5,120 per acre on the basis of the average price prevailing in respect of the lands situated in Taraf Mubarak Doem. 5. Some of the land-owners objected against the award and filed 13 separate applications for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In due course these were referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, for his award in the matter. With the agreement of the parties, the proceedings in all these cases were consolidated and the evidence was recorded together in the main case of Sh. Manzoor Hussain. On the 13th of February 1963, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, framed the following issues common to all the cases arising out of the pleadings of the parties:-- (1) Have the petitioners accepted the award: if so, what is the effect? (2) Is the reference not according to laws? (3) Whether the objections have not been filed in time? (4) What is the market price of the property acquired by the Improvement Trust? (5) Relief. 6. In the course of the proceedings, on the 9 of December 1963, the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Multan appointed Mr. S. M. Ahsan, Advocate, as a Local Commissioner for ascertaining the market value of the acquired land after enquiry and spot inspection. At the conclusion of his enquiry, the learned Local Commissioner submitted his report to the trial Court on the 6th of October 1964. In his report he observed that both the villages, Taraf Mubarak Awal and Taraf Mubarak Doem were contiguous and quite adjacent to Multan City. The land acquired by the Trust was a compact block and the mere fact that the land under acquisition forms part of two different Tarafs was immaterial and did not make any difference for all practical purposes. After spot inspection he observed that the quality of the land situated in both these Tarafs was good and its vicinity to the town and all other attending circumstances were quite similar. In his opinion, therefore, the market value of the whole of the land acquired by the Improvement Trust in the two villages must be assessed at the rate of Rs. 11,150-13-4 per acre on the basis of the quinquennial statement of the average price for the lands situated in Taraf Mubarak Awal.th
---
## Page 3
7. On receipt of this report from the Local Commissioner, the Court below invited objections against it from the parties and also gave an opportunity to them for their evidence. Eventually the learned Senior Civil Judge, by a single judgment delivered on the 26th of October 1966, disposed of all the 13 references before him together. He observed that the land--owners have failed to establish that the land in dispute was situated within the municipal limits of Multan at the time when these notifications were issued in the year 1951-52 or that this was urban property at the time. In adverting to the difference of opinion between the Land Acquisition Collector and the Local Commissioner, he observed that both were not correct in adopting the two extreme views formed by them in assessing the market value of the land. In his opinion the lands in Taraf Mubarak Awal and Taraf Mubarak Doem were situated close to each other and they might as well be of the same quality. But nevertheless each village has its own prevailing price. The average price in Taraf Mubarak Doem was Rs. 5,120 only but in Taraf Mubarak Awal it was Rs. 11,150-13-4 per acre. In these circumstances, in his opinion, the average price for the land should be calculated by adopting the mean value between these two extremes. He, therefore, determined the market value for the land in dispute at Rs. 8,135 per acre under issue No. 4. At the hearing before him the Trust did not press and gave up the remaining issues Nos. 1 to 3. 8. This award has given rise to the above 21 appeals in this Court. We heard the learned counsel for the parties in all these appeals at great length and they can best be disposed of together by this judgment as common questions of law and facts were raised before us. The entire land in dispute in these appeals before us is situated in Taraf Mubarak Doem. It was, therefore, asserted on behalf of the Improvement Trust that there was no justification for the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan, to have deviated from the award of compensation made by the Collector at Rs. 5,120 per acre on the basis of the average market value of the land prevailing .In this Taraf and enhance the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 8,135 per acre. On the other hand the land-owners in their cross-appeals before us have claimed the compensation -due to them at the rate of Rs. 80,000 per acre in respect of their acquired lands. 9. In this case the notices under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 were published fn newspapers and the Punjab Government Gazette during December 1951 to January 1952, and, therefore, in accordance with clause 1 of the Schedule to the Town Improvement Act, 1922, the market value of the land has got to be determined with reference to this date. But we find that in this respect, strictly speaking, the learned Land Acquisition Collector was A not justified in observing in his award that the crucial date for determination of the price was the 10th of October 1951, when this scheme was originally taken up. 10. Most of the evidence on the record of the Court below in this case was adduced by Sh. Manzoor Hussain, appellant, and the rest of the land-owners did not lead any independent evidence. He examined in all 29 witnesses and produced a large number of documents before the Local Commissioner appointed by the lower Court. But it was rightly observed by the learned Local Commissioner in his report that most of this evidence was either irrelevant or unnecessary. We shall, therefore, confine our discussion only to the relevant evidence necessary for ascertaining the market value of the land in dispute 11. At the outset it must be stated that in his judgment under appeal the learned Senior Civil Judge was of the opinion that it was not proved before him that the land in dispute was situated within the municipal limits of Multan during 1951-52 and was urban property assessed to tax. But these observations are on the face of it incorrect and patently erroneous. In this respect even the learned Local Commissioner too was not quite sure and had laboured under a mistake. He was examined in Court by the land-owners as a witness (P. W. 3) and deposed that he could not say as to whether the land in dispute was situated within the municipal limits and he did not think it necessary to mention this circumstance in his report. He, however, hastened to add that some of the documents
---
## Page 4
produced before him showed that some parts of the acquired land were situated within the municipal limits. There is ample evidence on the record to warrant the conclusion that actually the land in dispute was situated within the municipal limits. 12. In this connection before the Local Commissioner C. W. 19 Muhammad Anwar Shah produced the original plans of tile municipal limits of Multan in the years 1955 and 1962 and their true copies are Exhs. LAC/12 and LAC/13 respectively. According to LAC/13, the plan for the year 1962 the whole of the Shamshabad Colony in question is shown to be situated within the municipal limits. Comparing these two plans together it is evident that this colony was situated within the municipal limits even during the year 1955. There is no suggestion that these municipal limits were at any time extended after 1951-52. The land in dispute belonging to Sh. Manzoor Hussain Qureshi is situated on Chah Perrey Shah Wala. C. A. W. No. 19 Saif-ud-Din Patwari of the estate of Taraf Mobarak, on reference to the jamabandi for the year 1950-51. Deposed that the land comprised in Khata No. 1014 corresponding to the old Khata No. 956 is situated on Chah Perrey Shah Wala and was within the limits of the Municipal Committee. Exh. LAC-43 is the jamabandi for the year 1945- 46, relating to the acquired land comprised in Khata No. 956, on Chah Perrey Shah Wala belonging to Sh. Manzoor Hussain, shown to be situated within the municipal limits. Similarly according to copy of the jamabandi for the year 1955-56 (Exh. LAC 42) the land comprised in Khata No. 1014 on Chah Perrey Shah Wala is within the municipal limits. The proceedings taken on a number of mutations (Exhs. LAC/55 to LAC/67) also go to establish that the land comprised in this Khata relating to Chah Perrey Shah Wala, was situated within the municipal limits Exh. LAC/IT is a receipt issued by the municipal committee for the payment of the house tax for the year 1950-51 by Manzoor Hussain Shah, appellant, in respect of his land comprised in Khewat No. 956J situated on Chah Perrey Shah Wala. This was proved by C. W. 15, Abdul Haleem Khan, Ahlmad, Municipal Committee, Multan. Moreover C. W. 17, Shah Muhammad, a retired Patwari of the Nazool Department has proved the plans Exhs. LAC/18 and LAC/19 sanctioned by the Municipal Committee in the year 1947 for buildings on the plots of land situated on Chah Perrey Shah Wala. Exh. LAC/20 is another sanctioned plan to the same effect. CAW 28, Manzoor Hussain appellant in his statement as a witness deposed that the area under acquisition was situated within municipal limits and was assessed to house tax. There is no evidence-- in rebuttal produced by the Improvement Trust in this respect. It is, therefore firmly established that the whole of this land acquired for the purposes of Shamshabad Colony was situated within the municipal limits. A fortiori it can be legitimately presumed that this was also assessed to house tax levied within the municipal limits of Multan. 13. This land is situated on the main highway from Lahore to Quetta popularly known as the L. M. Q. Road. P. W. 3, Khan Sadiq Muhammad Ahsan, Advocate, the Local Commis--sioner, appointed by the Court below, deposed that it is situated near to the City of Multan. In his cross-examination he stated that Shamshabad Colony is situated on one side of L. M. Q. Road and Officers' Colony and Lawyers' Colony are situated on the other side of the road. He, however,, elaborated that the lands comprised in the Officers' Colony and the Lawyers' Colony were superior as compared to the one under Shamshabad Colony. After spot inspection the learned Local Commissioner observed in his report that the quality of the lands situated in Taraf Mubarak Awal and Tarag Mubarak Doem was good and their vicinity to the town and all other attending circumstances were similar. According to the observations made by the learned Land Acquisition Collector in his award the land comprised in this Scheme is far removed from the walled City although it is situated in the; vicinity of a few improvement schemes which were recently introduced. In his opinion, Taraf Mubarak Awal is much better situated area on account of its close vicinity to the town but the area in dispute was situated on the farthest extremity of the Taraf more akin to the adjoining Taraf Doem away from the City. Exh. D. 1 is a copy of awara made by the Collector for the acquisition of approximately 53.11. Acres of land situated in the estate of Taraf Mubarak Doem. Tehsil and District Multan on the 19th of
---
## Page 5
January 1952, for the development Scheme known as Gazetted Officers Colony (Babaristan) framed by the Multan Improvement Trust under section 24/25/28 of the Punjab Improvement Act. According to this award the area in the revenue estate known as Taraf Mubarak Doem vi as so situated that a part of it is inhabited by the urban proprietors, while the rest was a barren track forming the rural area far away from the City. It, however, appears from the award that the Courts, Commissioner's office and some other Government Offices are situated in this estate. Exh. D. 2 is a copy of another award with respect to an area measuring 57 acres 7 kanals 6 marlas situated in Taraf Mubarak Doem, acquired by the Improvement Trust in April 1964, for the extension of the Officers' Colony. Exh. D. 3 is a copy of the award with respect to the land measuring about 6.219 acres situated in Taraf Mubarak Awal acquired on the 1st of April 1957, for the purposes of the Housing Scheme known as Lawyers' Colony framed by the Multan Improvement Trust. According to the statement of the Local Commissioner these Colonies are situated opposite to Shamshabad Colony of the other side of the L. M. Q. Road. A fair idea about the surroundings and the locality in which this land is situated can also be gathered from the two plans (Exh. LAC/ l2 and LAC/13). It is situated outside the old walled city but within the outskirts and suburbs of a fast developing and expanding of Multan. It can, therefore, be conclude that at the relevant time the pressure on the lands in question in thi- locality for development for building purposes was quite considerable. 14. It shall be worthwhile now to critically examine some of the instances of sales brought on the record by the land-owners with a view to determine the market value of the land in dispute. On the 17th of January 1951, Malik Allah Wasaya and another sold a plot of land comprised in Khasra No. 4585, situated within the municipal limits, in the estate of Taraf Mubarak, to one Haji Muhammad Ramzan and others for Rs. 3,500 by means of a registered deed (Exb. LAC/4). Similarly on the 16th of February 1951, Allah Wassaya and others sold another plot of land measuring 1 kanal, comprised in Khasra No. 4585 situated within the municipal limits of Multan, in the estate of Taraf Mubarak, to Haji Muhammad Ramzan and others for Rs. 3,500 by means of another registered deed (Exh. LCA/7). Also, Malik Allah Wasaya and others sold Ihata with the land underneath measuring 3 marfas 7 sq. Feet, situated in Ward No. 10-Muslim Basti Kasaban Lahori Gate to Abdur Rehman and another for Rs. 5,000 on the 18th of February 1951, by a registered deed (Exh. LAC/6). On the 17th of February 1956, Allah Wassaya and another purchased a house along with the land underneath measuring 15 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 4545/1 situated in the estate of Taraf Mubarak Awai for Rs. 25,000 (Exh. LCA/83). The said Allah Wasaya appeared as a witness (C. A. W. 29) before the Local Commis--sioner to depose to these sales. According to him the area covered by these sales is the same as the one in dispute acquired by the Trust. It lies in the City area and is residential. In his opinion the price of the land in dispute at the time of its --acquisition was Rs. 3,500 per kanal. But according to C. A. W. 2,. Ahmad Din, who is a marginal witness of the sale deed (Exh. LCA/4) the land covered by the sale was situated near Lahori Gate at a great distance from the Shamshabad Colony. He, however, volunteered to state that it was situated near the Shamshabad Scheme. At any rate, two of these instances (LAC 6 and LAC 83) relate to the sale of Ihata and a house with the lands underneath, and are not helpful is ascertaining the market value of the land alone. There is no reliable and trustworthy evidence before us for comparing the relative merits and demerits of the lands comprised in these instances with the land in dispute, In another transaction, Haji Malik Hakim Qutab-ud-Din sold 31 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 10295/9854 situated in the estate of Taraf MubarA Awal to Mian Muhammad Nazir for Rs.2,988 on the 24th of March 1958, by a registered deed (Exh. LCA/1). He, likewise, sold another plot of land measuring 7 marlas 8 -- sqr. Yards comprised in Khasra No. 8518/4531 situated in the estate of Taraf Mubarak Awal for Rs. 7,000 on the 21st of June 1962 (Exh. LCA/2). By means of yet another sale deed he sold a third plot of land measuring 10 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 10295/9854 for Rs. 8,000 on the 11th of July 1960 (Exh. LCA/3). C. A. W. 1, Hakim Qutab-ud-Din, the vendor, appeared as a witness to depose that he has
---
## Page 6
sold those plots for residential purposes. But his evidence is not at all helpful in this case for a comparative study in ascertaining market value of the land in dispute. Moreover, these sales relate to a period long after the crucial date in this case. Khan Sadiq Muhammad Khan, Advocate, the learned Local Commissioner appointed by the Court below, purchased a plot of land measuring 6 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 10565/ 13005/2 situated in Taraf Mubarak Awal, within the municipal limits, for Rs. 2,152, on the 8th of August 1960 (Exh. P. 19) and the mutation for it is Exh. P. 21. He deposed that the land purchased by him was very excellent. Even otherwise we cannot safely rely on this instance in ascertaining the market value of the land prevailing in the year 1951-52. All this evidence is not very helpful in assessing the market value of the land in dispute prevailing during 1951-52. 14. But we find that there are a number of attested mutations on the record relevant for the purposes of this enquiry before us. These are Exhs. LAC/55 to LAC/67 relating to the sales of various plots of land comprised in Khasra No. 8580, Khata No. 956 old, corresponding to Kbata No. 1160 new, situated on Chah Perrey Shah Wala in the estate Taraf Mubarak, mostly sold by Sh. Manzoor Hussain, appellant, to the different purchasers from 17-I-1947 to 28-12-1950 in the form of small plots. The details about all these transactions can be found in the schedule separately attached with and forming a part of this judgment for the sake of convenience. 15. The three plots covered by mutations Exhs. LAC 56, LAC 57 and LAC 58 were sold during January 1947, at the ate of Rs. 29-11-0, Rs. 37-8-0 and Rs. 12-8-0 per marla respective--ly. On the 27th of March 1947, another plot of land was sold as is evident by mutation Exh. LAC 55 at Rs. 19-8-0 per marla. In September 1948, in all seven different plots of land were sold by means of mutations Exh. LAC 59 to LAC 65 at the rates ranging from Rs. 22-6-0 per marla to Rs. 38-12-0 marla. The Mutation Exh. LAC 65 shows that another plot was sold at the rate of Rs. 70 per marla on the 14th of June 1949. On the 21st of November 1949, two other plots of land were sold (as per mutations Exhs. LAC 65 and 67) at the rate of Rs. 43-7-0 and Rs. 58-5-0 per marla respectively. Last of ail on the 28th of December 1950, one Abdullah sold a plot measuring seven marlas to Karim Bakhsh for Rs. 5,000 (mutation Exh. LAC 50) at a fabulous price of Rs. 714-4-0 per marla. In fact this land was originally purchased by the vendor from Manzoor Hussain Shah appellant (vide mutation Exh. LAC 57) on the 20th of January 1947 at the rate of Rs. 37-8-0 per marla only. In this locality there has been an understandable rise in the price from Rs. 12-8-0 per marla at the minimum in the year 1947 to Rs. 70 per marla at the maximum in 1949. But there is no explanation for the sudden jump in the price to Rs. 714-4-0 per marla recorded on the 28th of December 1950, in mutation Exh. LAC 50. It is not safe to rely on this sole transaction which appears to be out of ordinary, altogether unusual and mot easy to explain. Excluding this one from consideration, the overall average sale price of the plots of lands in this locality on the basis of the remaining transactions comes to Rs. 53-7-0 per marla. The average price of the four plots sold during 1947 comes to Rs. 23-5-0 per marla. It was Rs. 29 per marla during 1948 and rose up to Rs. 57 per marla in 1949. All along there was a clear tendency discernable for a rapid increase in the prices of the plots of land for building purposes in this locality. All these instances of sales are directly relevant and greatly helpful in ascertaining the market value of the acquired land. All these plots sold by the different mutations are situated in the same locality and in general they compare favourably with the land in question. Some of these sales are also proximate in point of time. 15-A. However, in arriving at any conclusion due regard must be had to the understandable rise in the prices of the plots of land in this locality during the two years from 1949 to December 1951. In this connection in our opinion it shall be reasonable to allow for a 30 to 40 percent rise in the prices of plots of land in this locality during this period. At the same time it must be borne in mind that the aforementioned instances relate to sales of developed plots of land, and their prices ate for the net area sold away after leaving the roads and open spaces etc. There is no hard and fast rule for the
---
## Page 7
allowance made on this account. Each case must depend on its own facts. In this connection in Bombay Improvement Trust v. Mervangi Monekji Mistry (AIR 1926 Bom. 420) it was observed that the deduction might vary between 33 to 50 percent of the gross area of the land involved. Taking all these factors into consideration in our opinion the market value of the land in dispute on the material date should be assessed atRs. 55 per marla or Rs. 8,800 per acre in respect of the entire gross area of the acquired land in dispute. 16. These…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.