— Protection of property rights — Acquisition of land without payment of compensation — Scope — Respondents were deprived of their land without compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Respondents filed a suit which was ultimately decreed — Supreme Court observed that the respondents must have spent money and time with regard to a case which should have never seen a court of law, provided the petitioners had abided by the Constitution and the law — Whilst counsel of private parties were accountable to them, and might resort to unnecessary litigation, this was not expected from the petitioners — The Government of Punjab and every employee of it, including those in the office of the Advocate-General ran on public funds, therefore, one expects a much higher standard from them — The government and its servants were there to serve the people — In this case, land was taken without compensating the respondents — Therefore, whilst declining leave and dismissing this petition, Supreme Court directed the Government of Punjab to pay to the owners of the land, requisite compensation, within a period of thirty days from the receipt of this order and in addition also pay to them one million rupees as costs. [2024 SCLR 40 = 2024 SCMR 22]

11. Enquiry and award by Collector. On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub­section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of—

(i) the true area of the land;

(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and

(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.

— Enquiry and award by Collector — Scope — It is always bounden duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to take into consideration all the relevant factors, while determining the amount of compensation instead of relying upon the compensation assessed by the price assessment committee or the Board of Revenue. [2024 CLS 1 = 2024 CLC 1 = 2023 LHC 3306]

— Ss. 30 & 18 — Dispute as to apportionment — Reference to Court — Legal distinctions and implications of section 30 v. section 18 in land acquisition cases — Scope — Perusal of the section 30 makes it clear that when an award has been passed in terms of section 11, and if any dispute has arisen as to who are the actual owners of the acquired land and to whom the compensation has to be paid, the Collector may refer such dispute for an appropriate decision by the Court — Under this provision the quantum of compensation is not a matter of dispute nor it can be raised before the Court under a reference in terms of section 30 — For that if anyone who objects to the Collectors award has an absolute right under section 18 to have the matter referred to the Court — What section 30 intends, is to merely enable the Collector himself in certain difficult cases to refer the question to the Court of his own motion — At the same time it also does not prohibit the Collector to decide, if he can, whilst it gives him an opportunity, of shifting the decision to the Court, and also leaves the parties themselves free to approach the Court if they are dissatisfied with the Collector’s apportionment — Per settled law where there is a dispute as to who are the persons interested or as to the extent of their interests or as to the nature of their respective interests that would not be for the Collector to decide under section 18, but should be left to the Courts to adjudicate upon under section 30 — The dispute which relates to the title in the property would certainly come within the purview of section 30 and is not covered by the provision of section 18 thereof — Therefore, it would be safe to hold that when there is a reference under section 30, before a Court, then the question regarding enhancement of compensation or otherwise it being less or inadequate, neither can be raised by anyone; nor the Court has any jurisdiction to decide the same, as references under section 18 and section 30 are conceptually different from each other — In fact the Referee Court cannot even convert a reference under section 30 into one in section 18, or vice versa, even by its own motion or at the request of a party before it. [2024 CLS 30 = 2024 CLC 239]

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—

first, the market­value 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, moveable or immoveable, 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 market­value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market­value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

— Matters to be considered in determining compensation — Scope — When assessing the compensation for acquired land, several salient features must be taken into consideration to ensure a fair and just valuation — The most commonly derived factors include:

(i) Market Value: The current market value of the land at the prevalent time and its potential for future development play a crucial role in determining compensation.

(ii) Historical Sales: Examining the one-year average of sales for similar land that occurred before the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act provides valuable insights into the property’s value.

(iii) Likelihood of Development: The potential for development and improvement of the acquired land is a significant factor in determining its compensation, considering the future utility and value.

(iv) Willing Buyer-Willing Seller Scenario: The compensation should reflect what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller in an open market arms-length transaction, free from any compulsion.

(v) Severance Loss: Consideration should be given to the loss or injury incurred by severing the acquired land from other property owned by the landowner.

(vi) Change of Residence or Business: Compensation should account for any loss or injury resulting from a change in residence or place of business, including the potential loss of profit.

(vii) Delay in Acquisition Proceedings: Delays in the consummation of acquisition proceedings may affect the overall value of the land, and compensation should address any adverse impact caused by such delays.

(viii) Peculiar Facts and Circumstances: Each case is unique, and the compensation assessment should take into account the peculiar facts and circumstances surrounding the acquisition, ensuring a nuanced and fair valuation. [2024 CLS 1 = 2024 CLC 1 = 2023 LHC 3306]

— Ss. 30 & 18 — Dispute as to apportionment — Reference to Court — Legal distinctions and implications of section 30 v. section 18 in land acquisition cases — Scope — Perusal of the section 30 makes it clear that when an award has been passed in terms of section 11, and if any dispute has arisen as to who are the actual owners of the acquired land and to whom the compensation has to be paid, the Collector may refer such dispute for an appropriate decision by the Court — Under this provision the quantum of compensation is not a matter of dispute nor it can be raised before the Court under a reference in terms of section 30 — For that if anyone who objects to the Collectors award has an absolute right under section 18 to have the matter referred to the Court — What section 30 intends, is to merely enable the Collector himself in certain difficult cases to refer the question to the Court of his own motion — At the same time it also does not prohibit the Collector to decide, if he can, whilst it gives him an opportunity, of shifting the decision to the Court, and also leaves the parties themselves free to approach the Court if they are dissatisfied with the Collector’s apportionment — Per settled law where there is a dispute as to who are the persons interested or as to the extent of their interests or as to the nature of their respective interests that would not be for the Collector to decide under section 18, but should be left to the Courts to adjudicate upon under section 30 — The dispute which relates to the title in the property would certainly come within the purview of section 30 and is not covered by the provision of section 18 thereof — Therefore, it would be safe to hold that when there is a reference under section 30, before a Court, then the question regarding enhancement of compensation or otherwise it being less or inadequate, neither can be raised by anyone; nor the Court has any jurisdiction to decide the same, as references under section 18 and section 30 are conceptually different from each other — In fact the Referee Court cannot even convert a reference under section 30 into one in section 18, or vice versa, even by its own motion or at the request of a party before it. [2024 CLS 30 = 2024 CLC 239]

— S. 30 — Dispute as to apportionment — Scope — When Government acquires immoveable property under the Land Acquisition Act, it is for the person claiming compensation to establish his title affirmatively — To support claims to lands acquired under section 30, the claimants must show title or in the absence of title deeds effective occupation — Evidence of possession, if any, must also be of the rightful owners and this rule should be applied with caution and reservation in favor of a wrong doer. [2024 CLS 30 = 2024 CLC 239]

— Intra Court Appeal — Maintainability — Scope — Appellant moved an application under rules 14 and 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 which was dismissed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, that order was assailed through Constitution Petition with the same result as dismissed by the Single Judge in Chamber vide impugned order — Although, no remedy of appeal, revision or review is provided in the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, but the original order of acquisition of appellant’s land provides remedy of reference (section 18) and appeal (section 54) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — The test laid down by the legislature is that whether the original order passed in the proceedings is subject to an appeal under the law or not? — If the law applicable to the proceedings from which the Constitution Petition arises provides for at least one appeal against the original order, then no appeal would be competent from the order of a Single Judge in the constitutional jurisdiction to a Bench of two or more Judges of the High Court — The crucial words are the “original order” and meaning of expression “original order” is the order with which the proceedings under the relevant statute commenced — In the light of aforesaid definition the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would seem to be commenced with the acquisition of appellant’s land and that proceedings ended with ‘Award’ of the Land Acquisition Collector — Against which the remedy of ‘Reference’ under Section 18 and then appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were available — The appellant filed application under rules 14 & 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 in respect of acquisition order of his land — In this way this application did not start any new proceedings and order of acquisition is the original order with which proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were commenced and all orders subsequently passed would be treated as orders passed in continuation of said proceedings — Therefore, in view of availability of remedy of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 qua the original order of acquisition proceedings, the Intra Court Appeal is not maintainable under proviso of Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. [2024 CLS 15 = 2024 CLC 114 = 2022 LHC 2385]