2023 SCLR 64

Other citations:

2023 SCP 303 (https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.r.p._446_2022.pdf)

2023 SCMR 2092 (https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/MainPage)

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Umar Ata Bandial, CJ, Ayesha A. Malik and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

Federal Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and others—Petitioners

versus

Mst. Zakia Begum and others—Respondents

C.R.P.446/2022 IN C.A.2150/2019, C.R.P.447/2022 IN C.A.2154/2019, C.R.P.448/2022 IN C.A.2155/2019,  C.R.P.449/2022 IN C.A.2156/2019, C.R.P.450/2022 IN C.A.2157/2019, C.R.P.451/2022 IN C.A.2158/2019, C.R.P.452/2022 IN C.A.2159/2019, C.R.P.453/2022 IN C.A.2160/2019, C.R.P.454/2022 IN C.A.2161/2019, C.R.P.455/2022 IN C.A.2162/2019, C.R.P.456/2022 IN C.A.2163/2019, C.R.P.457/2022 IN C.A.2164/2019, C.R.P.458/2022 IN C.A.2165/2019, C.R.P.459/2022 IN C.A.2166/2019. C.R.P.460/2022 IN C.A.2167/2019, C.R.P.461/2022 IN C.A.2168/2019, C.R.P.462/2022 IN C.A.2169/2019, C.R.P.463/2022 IN C.A.2170/2019, C.R.P.464/2022 IN C.A.2171/2019, C.R.P.465/2022, C.R.P.466/2022, C.R.P.467/2022 IN C.A.2174/2019, C.R.P.468/2022 IN C.A.2175/2019, C.R.P.469/2022 IN C.A.2176/2019, C.R.P.470/2022, C.R.P.471/2022 IN C.A.2178/2019, C.R.P.472/2022 IN C.A.2179/2019, C.R.P.473/2022 IN C.A.2180/2019, C.R.P.474/2022 IN C.A.2181/2019, C.R.P.475/2022 IN C.A.2182/2019, C.R.P.476/2022 IN C.A.2183/2019, C.R.P.477/2022 IN C.A.2184/2019, C.R.P.478/2022 IN C.A.2185/2019, C.R.P.479/2022 IN C.A.2186/2019, C.R.P.480/2022 IN C.A.2187/2019, C.R.P.481/2022 IN C.A.2188/2019, C.R.P.482/2022 IN C.A.2189/2019, C.R.P.483/2022 IN C.A.2190/2019, C.R.P.484/2022 IN C.A.2191/2019, C.R.P.485/2022 IN C.A.2192/2019, C.R.P.486/2022 IN C.A.2193/2019, C.R.P.487/2022 IN C.A.2194/2019, C.R.P.488/2022 IN C.A.2195/2019, C.R.P.489/2022 IN C.A.2196/2019. C.R.P.490/2022 IN C.A.2197/2019, C.R.P.491/2022 IN C.A.2198/2019, C.R.P.492/2022 IN C.A.2199/2019, C.R.P.493/2022 IN C.A.2200/2019, C.R.P.494/2022 IN C.A.2201/2019, C.R.P.495/2022 IN C.A.2202/2019, C.R.P.496/2022 IN C.A.2203/2019, C.R.P.497/2022 IN C.A.2204/2019, C.R.P.498/2022 IN C.A.2205/2019, C.R.P.499/2022 IN C.A.2206/2019, C.R.P.500/2022 IN C.A.2207/2019, C.R.P.501/2022 IN C.A.2208/2019, C.R.P.502/2022 IN C.A.2209/2019, C.R.P.503/2022 IN C.A.2210/2019, C.R.P.504/2022 IN C.A.2211/2019, C.R.P.505/2022 IN C.A.2212/2019, C.R.P.506/2022 IN C.A.2213/2019, C.R.P.507/2022 IN C.A.2214/2019, C.R.P.508/2022 IN C.A.2215/2019, C.R.P.509/2022 IN C.A.2216/2019, C.R.P.510/2022 IN C.A.2217/2019. C.R.P.511/2022 IN C.A.2218/2019, C.R.P.512/2022 IN C.A.2219/2019, C.R.P.513/2022 IN C.A.2220/2019, C.R.P.514/2022 IN C.A.2221/2019, C.R.P.515/2022 IN C.A.2222/2019, C.R.P.516/2022 IN C.A.2223/2019, C.R.P.517/2022 IN C.A.2224/2019, C.R.P.518/2022 IN CA. 2225/2019, C.R.P.519/2022 IN C.A.2226/2019, C.R.P.520/2022 IN C.A.2227/2019, C.R.P.521/2022 IN CA.2228/2019, C.R.P.522/2022 IN CA.2229/2019, C.R.P.523/2022 IN C.A.2230/2019, C.R.P.524/2022 IN C.A.2231/2019, C.R.P.525/2022 IN C.A.2232/2019, C.R.P.526/2022 IN C.A.2233/2019, C.R.P.527/2022 IN C.A. 2234/2019, C.R.P.528/2022 IN C.A.2235/2019, C.R.P.529/2022 IN C.A.2236/2019, C.R.P.530/2022 IN C.A.2237/2019, C.R.P.531/2022 IN C.A.2238/2019, C.R.P.532/2022, C.R.P.533/2022 IN C.A.2240/2019, C.R.P.534/2022 IN C.A.2241/2019, C.R.P.535/2022 IN C.A.2242/2019, C.R.P.536/2022 IN C.A.2243/2019, C.R.P.537/2022 IN C.A.2244/2019, C.R.P.538/2022 IN C.A.2245/2019, C.R.P.539/2022 IN C.A.2246/2019, C.R.P.540/2022 IN C.A.2247/2019, C.R.P.541/2022 IN C.A.2248/2019, C.R.P.542/2022 IN C.A.2249/2019, C.R.P.543/2022 IN C.A.2250/2019, C.R.P.544/2022 IN C.A.2251/2019, C.R.P.545/2022 IN C.A.2252/2019, C.R.P.546/2022 IN C.A.2253/2019, C.R.P.547/2022 IN C.A.2254/2019, C.R.P.548/2022 IN C.A.2255/2019, C.R.P.549/2022 IN C.A.2256/2019, C.R.P.550/2022 IN C.A.2257/2019, C.R.P.551/2022 IN C.A.2258/2019, C.R.P.552/2022 IN C.A.2259/2019, C.R.P.553/2022 IN C.A.2260/2019, C.R.P.554/2022 IN C.A.2261/2019, C.R.P.555/2022 IN C.A.2262/2019, C.R.P.556/2022 IN C.A.2263/2019, decided on 18^th July, 2023.

(Against the judgment dated 24.03.2022 passed by this Court in CA No.2150-2263/2019 and CMA No. 5284-5300/2020)

HEADNOTES

Constitution of Pakistan —

Rashdeen Nawaz Qasoori, Addl AGP assisted by Muhammad Ibrahim, Advocate High Court and Rameez Sarfraz, MEO Abbottabad for the petitioners.

Nemo for respondents.

Date of hearing: 18^th July, 2023.

ORDER

Umar Ata Bandial, CJ: We have heard the learned Addl. Attorney General at length. His principal grievance is that the increase in value of acquired land to the amount that the High Court has ordered is not backed by evidence. Paragraph-05 of the judgment of the High Court records the evidentiary values of the land acquired according to its agricultural/revenue classification. Considering that the land is acquired for a single project, this Court has affirmed the value assigned by the High Court to the acquired land for the reason that the original value as determined by the Collector and the Referee Court was based on revenue classifications which have no relevance for the purposes of calculating compensation. Furthermore, when land is acquired in small parcels, awarding compensation based on revenue classifications to small parcels of land is to the disadvantage of the landowners, because it undermines the potential value of the large parcels of land acquired for a single project. Consequently, the uniform valuation for the entire land acquired for the project possesses justification. Reference is made to paragraph-17 of our judgment under review reported as “Federal Government of Pakistan versus Mst. Zakia Begum” (PLD 2023 SC 277).

2.           An important aspect of our judgment under review is that the calculation of potential value of acquired land by a Court of law starting from the referee Court up to this Court cannot be left to their discretionary assessment. There must be guidelines framed by the competent legislative or regulatory bodies for determining the potential value of the land acquired for various types of public purpose projects. To emphasize the point, we reproduce the said observation made in paragraph-18 of our impugned judgment:

“18. Ideally, there should be guidelines to calculate this value, however, since the efforts of the government have been to undervalue the land, no real effort has gone into devising a scheme to calculate potential value over the years. This is why there is so much litigation on just this issue. Under the circumstances, there is a dire need to legislate on the issue and to devise a methodology to calculate potential value and market value so that it is neither arbitrary nor left to the whims of the Collector. This should be a priority for the government as acquisition cannot be at the expense of the financial loss of a landowner. Where there is acquisition for public purpose, the Act mandates that a fair value is prescribed based on the market value and the potential value of the land and the cases of this Court give sufficient guidance on calculating market value and potential value, hence, there appears to be no justification to continue with archaic concepts whilst valuing the land. In these cases, market value and potential value has been assessed at Rs.30,000/ – per kanal based on the willing buyer, willing seller formula as well as on the available amenities such as transport, electricity, urban development and industrialization, which shows there is potential for the area to be fully developed. This is based on the evidence and calculation of future prospects. Unfortunately, a great amount of time was consumed for the land owners to get the worth of their land all of which could have been avoided, had the value been properly assessed.”

3.           In the light of foregoing, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment under review. Dismissed.

Petitions dismissed