AWARD NO 4: ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS

Aurangzeb Khan & Others (Petitioners) Vs Collector Land Acquisition, Ghazi- Barotha Project,
WAPDA etc (Respondents).

BACKGROUND SNAPSHOT

AppellantsProperty Objections on Award No. Partial Relief to Appeal CA

acquired by 4 (21.4.1996) & Reasons Appellants by PHC 1798/2005 u/s 54
GBHPP Thereof (RFA 30/2000, 24.5.2005) LAA Supreme
Court of Pakistan

35k-16m-2s i. Wrong classification: Court overlooked Remanded

Wrong valuation of irrefutable documentary tohon’ble PHC
land evidence, gave nominal Abbottabad
relief(pages 164-167i) Bench
(details are at Annex-A)

162 Orange trees i. Number of plants wronglyPartially increased the Remanded to PHC
(5yrs)* decreased** number of plants Abbottabad Bench

ii. Wrongly decreased Issues of valuation &

capitalization (details capitalization not addressed
at Annex-B)

184 Orange trees As above Partially increased the Remanded

(8yrs)* number of plants toHon’ble PHC
Abbottabad Bench
Issues of valuation & vide order of
capitalization not addressed august
Supreme Court of
Pakistan dtd.
January6. 2015 in
CA1798/2005

9 Loquat trees As above Not addressed Remanded to PHC

(7yrs)* Abbottabad Bench

47 Plum trees As above Not addressed Remanded to PHC

(9yrs)* Abbottabad Bench

350 Mango trees As above Partially increased the Remanded to PHC

(10yrs)* number of plants Abbottabad Bench

Page 1 of 37
 Issues of valuation &
capitalization not addressed

25 Guava trees As above As above Remanded to PHC

(6yrs)* Abbottabad Bench

112 Apple trees As above Not addressed Remanded to PHC

(8yrs)* Abbottabad Bench

3 Almond trees As above Not addressed Remanded to PHC

(8yrs)* Abbottabad Bench

232 Orange trees As above Remanded to PHC

(5yrs)* Abbottabad Bench

* Number of plants and age determined by Fruit & Vegetable Board KP.
** LAC disregarded report of the Fruit & Vegetable Board KP, made his own arbitrary conjectures.

Appellants’ land situated in Village Ghara, Tehsil Ghazi, District Haripur, KP, described in khasra
Nos. 24 to 27 and 32 to 36, was acquired by Collector Land Acquisition, WAPDA, Ghazi, for
construction of Ghazi-Barotha Hydropower Project, through Award No. 4, dated April 21, 1996.

Appellants felt aggrieved on account of .

i. Inadequate compensation and wrong classification of land;

ii. Non counting, wrong classification and undervaluation of fruit bearing trees;

a. Non consideration of compensation of fruit trees planted in Appellantsland khasra

N,os.27&28,left outside of landacquisition limit, which died due to acquisition of
source of irrigation;Appellantstube well in khasra No.25 &severance of Bagh,
ChahiAbadilands noted above from main Bagh, ChahiAbadi type land. Which
changed this very productive and valuable land to less productive non irrigated
Maira type land .

iii. Inadequate compensation of built-up property.

They moved Objection Petition u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act which was tried by the learned
Additional District Judge Haripur as Objection Petition No. 49/4 of 1996 and was dismissed vide
the judgment and the decree dated 30/05/2000.

Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the Objection Petition, the Appellants filed R.F.A. 30/2000 in
hon’blePeshawar High Court, AbbottabadBench which was partially accepted on 24/5/2005. The
judgment granting partial relief had also disregarded the facts of the case and was, therefore,
against the law.

Page 2 of 37
 ISSUES & CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS

ISSUE No. 1

Whether the entire improvements over the acquired property were made by Appellants and
only Appellants are entitled to its entire compensationby the exclusion of the names of
Respondents No. 3 to 8?

Appellants had exclusively improved Khasra Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of the suit lands by mutual
understanding with the other co-sharers, from Maira type of land to Bagh/Chahi/Abadi type of
land. Khasra Girdawari bears this fact (refer pages41 to 45). Appellants, therefore, claimed the
entire compensation of Orchards, residential and non residential construction including tube well
and improvement of these khasras from Maira to Bagh/Chahi/Abadi, with the exclusion of
names of Respondents No. 3 to 8. This contention of Appellants was partially accepted by
Respondent No.1 (the Collector) by paying the entire compensation of Orchards and residential
and non residential construction to Appellants but the improvement cost of land frum Maira was
distributed amongst all the respondents from No. 3 to 8.

Appellants’ reference under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was resisted by Respondent
Nos.1 and 3 while the rest had no objection to grant of decree. Respondent No. 3 also gave up
resistance during proceedings of the case and accepted the Appellants contention. The learned
Referee Court wrote in the judgment, on pages 17-18, reproduced below for convenience of
reference:-

“This objection petition was resisted by Respondent No. 1 and 3 while the rest had no
objection under the grant of decree under reference under Section 30 of L.A. Act. Thus out
rightly without further holding the question of apportionment under Section 30 of L.A Act
under the statement of Fazalur Rehman respondent No.3 when he has admitted that
Aurangzeb is in possession of land bearing khasra Nos. 25, 26 and 27 and has improved his
land by Bagh Maiwadar and Built up Property. If any entitlement to improvements and
enhanced rate he shall be given the decree. Under this no objection statement the objection
petition under Section 30 of L.A. Act is straightaway accepted.”

The Appellants’ entitlement to the entire compensation of improvement of acquired land from
khasra Nos. 25, 26 and 27, by the exclusion of the names of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8, had been
established and the compensation, as awarded in impugned award, had been paid to
themaccording to their sharein revenew record. Appellants now claim the entitlement to
entire enhanced portion of improvement cost, covered under ISSUE No. 2, below.

Page 3 of 37
ISSUE No. 2

Whether landed property is wrongly classified and undervalued, if so, what is correct
classification and valuation?

2.1. CLASSIFICATION OF LAND

The impugned Award, judgments and decrees by learned Courts were passed without due
consideration of the following important facts:

i. Perusal of Khasra Girdawari pages 41-45 shows that entire Khasra Nos. 25, 26 and 27,
collectively measuring 45 kanal 17 marlas, were irrigated from tube well, located in
acquired khasra No. 25. Fruit Orchard existed planted and cash crops grown in these
khasras, in their entirety. Therefore, the acquired area from these khasras, measuing 41
kanal 16 marlas cannot have any other classification than Bagh/Chahi/Abadi type; but by
wrongly evaluating the evidence on record Collector classified only 23 kanal 8 marlas as
Bagh/Chahi/Abadi, in award No. 4, relying on out- dated periodic revenue
record(Jamabandi).

ii. Perusal of Aks Shajra Kishtwar, page47-48, shows that the suit lands, khasra Nos. 24, 25,
26, 27 and 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 formed a compact block, through which passed the
District Council Road, located in khasra No. 31, providing extensive and obvious contact
with these Khasras. Second District Council Road, located in khasra No. 23, existed all
along the entire North-Western boundary of khasra Nos. 24 and 25.

iii. Muhammad Daud, Patwari Halqa, witness corroborated the facts noted at (i) and (ii)
above, by his statement before the learned Court of Additional District Judge. He stated,

 “Area under reference is surrounded on two sides by roads and is near to Ghazi Hamlet.
The Estate of Khalo and Ghazi are adjacent to the Estate of Ghara which have been
shown in the Aks Shajra Kishtwar. The road shown withyellow colour is located in khasra
No. 31 (page49 is referred)

 “There is abadi in khasra Nos. 25, 22, 4, 57 and 61. There is a mosque in khasra No. 5”,
(pages 47 and 108).

iv. The suit lands were located in the middle of the three closely located, population centers
of Ghazi, Khalo and Ghazi Hamlet and were connected through the network of roads with
main Ghazi - Tarbela Road ReferArea map on page 49). With existence of network of
access roads, a mosque in near vicinity and houses in and around, the suit lands qualify to
be classified as building site and when containing orchards, cash crops and irrigation tube
well in Khasra No. 25, cannot be classified any other type but Bagh/Chahi/Abadi having
comercial potential.

v. Appellants’ contention of reclassification of the entire suit-lands as Bagh/ Chahi /Abadi, is

further supported by several judgments of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported
Page 4 of 37
 as 1991 SCMR 2164, PLD 1993 SC 80, PLD 1982 SC 100, PLD 2001 SC 405, 2000
SCMR 870, 2000 SCMR 1322, PLJ 2001 SC 373 and PLJ 2005 SC 1919, PLJ 2004
Peshawar 210, 1996 SCMR 1118, PLD 1996 SC 158, 1993 SCMR 1700. For the sake of
brevity, only one of the cases listed above is cited here in support of Appellants’
contention of reclassification of their entire acquired lands as Bagh/Chahi/Abadi by virtue
of Appellants’ tube well existing inside suit lands, suit lands being a compact block,
accessible to main Tarbela-Ghazi road by a network of roads, located in the middle of 3
population centers of Ghazi, Khalo and a cluster of 3 affected villages of Tarbela Dam
Project called as Ghazi Hamlet with potential as building site. In the case titled Sardar
Abdur Rauf Khan and others vs the Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner,
Abbottabad and others, 1991 SCMR 2164, there is discussion on the interpretation of
section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1884. Case-law on the subject has been discussed and
in the light of the case law, principles have been enunciated which are mentioned as
under:-

a. That an entry in the Revenue Record as to the nature of the land may not be
conclusive, for example, land may be shown in Girdawari as Maira, but because of
the existence of a well near the land, make it capable of becoming Chahi land;

b. that while determining the potentials of the land, the use of which the land is capable
of being put, ought to be considered;

c. that the market value of the land is normally to be taken as existing on the date of
publication including other factors like potential value etc.

The suit lands not only had a tube well nearby, it existed inside one of the suit lands and in view
of other factors noted above, the entire acquired suit lands could not but be classified as
Bagh/Chahi/Abadi type which was not done by the Collector due to biased and wrong valuation
of the evidence on record and due to non reading the case by learned Additional District Judge
andHon’ble Peshawar High Court Bench.

2.2. VALUATION OF LAND

Bagh/Chahi/Abadi land and Maira land in award No. 4 were valued as Rs. 144,177.60 per kanal
and Rs. 79,297.68 per kanal, respectively, (Refer page107). While valuation of Maira land was
fair and close to market rate, the valuation of Bagh/Chahi/Abadi type of land was far low below
the market rate. No rationale was provided for the valuation of different categories of land in the
impugned award.

As a rule and practice, the valuation of different types of lands is based on valuation of the
predominant type of land in the Project Area which is Maira type in the Project Area of Ghazi-
Barotha Hydropower Project. Having arrived at fair market rate of Maira land the valuation of
any other type of land, say Chahi land, is arrived at by prorating the market rate of Maira land
with the ratio of land revenue of Chahi land and Maira land as given in “Parta Bandubast” of the
affected village. This method, provides fair basis of evaluation of any type of land because land

Page 5 of 37
revenue depending on the productivity of the type of land is the deciding factor when all other
potentialities of Maira type and other type of land, are same.

As a precedence of application of above noted method of land evaluation, reference is made to

the judgment of Hon’ble Abbottabad Bench of Peshawar High Court in RFA No 70 of 1992,
against evaluation of the acquired land, in award dated 30.7.1989, in adjacent Village Ghazi,
acquiring land for Ministry of Defense. Perusal of the valuations of different types of land on
pages67-71 shows that the valuations have been made on the basis of above mentioned rational
method. The rate of land revenue has been obtained from Parta Bandubast of Village Ghazi
(page 60 is referred). Military Estate Officer did not challenge the method of evaluation nor did
the affectees. While enhancing the valuation of different categories of land, the Hon’ble
Peshawar High Court and finally the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition No.
415 - 96 and CA1001 to 1010/96, maintained the same valuation method, pages62-72are
referred.

The ratio between the rate of land revenue of Maira and Chahi type of land of Village Ghara, as
given in Parta BanduBast, is 1:4 (page 61 is referred). Following this method, the valuation of
Chahi type of land (or valuation of Bagh/Chahi/Abadi land as all three types of land are
considered same) in Award No. 4 should have been Rs. 4 x valuation of Maira land in award No.
4, i.e 4 x 79, 297.68 or Rs. 317,190.72 / Kanal.

Comparing the productivity of Maira land, yielding only one crop of wheat in barani area, with
at least 2 (or sometimes 3) cash crops of Chahi land, the valuation of Bagh/Chahi/Abadi type of
land, as arrived at above is fair.

ISSUE No.3

Whether the built up property is under-valued, if so, what is its correct valuation?

Methodology and the Policy Guidelines of WAPDA, for the valuation of the Residential
Property (House), given in Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), page 133, Para 8.3, titled,
“VALUATION of BUILDINGS”, was:

a. All structures would be valued at full replacement cost,

b. Replacement cost for thehouses shall be evaluated on Schedule of rates of covered

areas of different types of houses given in RAP, with clear stipulation that “the
rates were applicable for 1995 and if, for any reason, the replacement housing is to
be constructed after 1995, the rates will be revised appropriately”.

Built-up Property of the petitioners comprised of Residential Built-up Property and Non
Residential Built-up Property. Each type of property was evaluated differently.

Page 6 of 37
3.1. Residential Built-up Property

3.1.1. Under Valuation of Residential Built-up Property

Award No. 4 was announced on April 21, 1996 and the covered area schedule for
Valuation of Buildings, given in RAP had become out-dated and inapplicable by then in
accordance with the RAP stipulation noted above. Respondent No.1 evaluated the
compensation of Appellants house on the inapplicable Schedule of covered area rates.

3.1.2. Fair Valuation of Residential Built-up Property

The impugned award was announced on April 21, 1996 but the compensation of Built-up
Property was paid to Appellants on June 22, 1996. The replacement housing could
possibly be constructed in the period July 1996 to June 1997. In these circumstances, the
schedule of covered area rates given in RAP should have been revised upwards equal to
the rate of Inflation for the year 1996-97.

Inflation rate, expressed as percentage increase in the average level of prices over a year
is measured with an index which is an indicator of the changes in the prices of a basket
of goods and services over a given base year. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS)
formerly Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS)]of the Government of Pakistan, computes
inflation using following different indices but commonly used indices are: i) Consumer
Price Index (CPI) which is main measure of price changes and is most widely used
measure of Inflation in the World and ii) Wholesale Price Index (WPI) which depicts
movement of prices in the wholesale markets and includes building materials in its
basket.

WPI for year 1995-96 is 176.90 and that for year 1996-97 is 199.92.

Inflation Rate = (WPI current year - WPI previous year)/WPI previous year x 100

= (199.92-176.90)/176.90 x 100

= 13.01%

For valuation of the Residential Property the covered area rate given in RAP should have
been enhanced by 13.01 % to account for the inflation during the year 1996-97 which
was not done. Hence Appellants are entitled to get 13.01% enhancement of the estimate
of Built-up Property, given on page34.

3.2. Non Residential Built- up Property

3.2.1. Under Valuation of Non Residential Built-up Property

Methodology for valuation of Non Residential Built up Property like tube well, pump
house, pump and its accessories, boundary wall, barbed wire fence, watercourses etc was
not given in Resettlement Action Plan. Respondent No.1 assessed the compensation of
Non Residential Property on the basis of “WAPDA Schedule of Rates, 1990”. The
Page 7 of 37
 compensation worked out according to 6 years old WAPDA Schedule of Rates was
enhanced by 20 %, (statement of OW – 1, Zahid Hussain, Engineer WAPDA, page22 is
referred).

Enhancement of the compensation by 20 % in 6 years is not fair and inadequate to

balance out the depreciation of the currency due to inflation in that period of high
inflation.

3.2.2. Fair Valuation of Non Residential Built-up Property

The estimate of compensation prepared on the basis of WAPDA Schedule of Rates, 1990,
should have been indexed on the basis of Inflation rates since the year 1990, up to the
year 1996, the year of announcement of Award No. 4. Respondent No.1 made no rational
approach to mitigate the effects of Inflation on the compensation in a fair manner.
Wholesale Inflation, containing building materials in its basket, is the relevant inflation
Index in this case.

The Index Number of Wholesale Price Inflation (General group) for the year 1990-91 is
100 and Index Number for the year 1995-96 is 176.90, refer page .

Inflation during the period 1990-91 to 1995-96 is (176.90 – 100)/100 x 100 or 76.90 %.
The compensation of Non Residential Property of Appellants, based on WAPDA
Schedule of Rates 1990, should have been enhanced by 76.90 % instead of 20 %, to
fairly account for the effects of Inflation during the period 1990-91 to 1995-96. Hence
the Petitioners are entitled to 76.90 % enhancement of the estimate of compensation of
Non Residential Built-up Property.

ISSUE No. 4

Whether fruit bearing trees of the Appellants are wrongly counted, wrongly classified and
undervalued, if so, what are the correct number, classification and valuation?

4.1. Wrong Counting and Wrong Classification of Fruit Trees

During acquisition proceedings, Collector Ghazi-Barotha Project, on behest of acquiring

department WAPDA, asked NWFP Fruit & Vegetable Board, at Ghazi, to depute an official of
their office for the assessment of fruit bearing trees, refer Letter No. LAC / GBHP/ Tarbela /
95-426, refer page98. Accordingly, Shafi-ur-Rehman, an official of the Fruit & Vegetable
Board, Ghazi, along with revenue staff of the collector, inspected the orchard of Appellants in
Village Ghara and submitted “Report of Counting of Fruit Bearing Trees”, pages 90 to 91 are
referred.

Without refuting the report submitted by Fruit Board Official, Land Acquisition Collector
adopted another fictitious report (refer pages 153-154) and reduced the number of fruit trees of

Page 8 of 37
Appellants from 892 to 781.

Without disputing the age given in the “Report of Counting of Fruit Bearing Trees”byFruit
Board Expert, Land Acquisition Collector classified 145 Orange trees of age 5 years, 15
Guava trees of age 6 years and 73 mango trees of age 10 years, as “Nursery”, without
realizing that the plants of these age groups, already planted in the orchard, cannot be
classified as “Nursery”. Land Acquisition Collector acquired these plants numbering 233,
without making any payment; not even as fuel wood,page153 is referred.

Land Acquisition Collector also classified 112 Apple trees and 3 Almond trees, both of age 8
years, as “Ornamental” trees and, acquired even these fruit trees without making any
payment, page153 is referred, again.

The arbitrary classification of fruit trees and the inconsistencies in the report, acted upon and
Acquisition Collector, came in focus of Hon’ble High Court, Abbottabad Bench. The
Hon’ble High Court was not convinced of the fairness of the report acted upon by Land
Acquisition Collector and noted in the judgment:

“We have perused the said report and have found that orange trees of the age of 8 years
numbering 127 have been assessed at Rs. 300/- per tree produce and compensation
determined is Rs. 4,57,200/- but orange plants of the age of 5 years, guava plants of the age
of 6 years, mango plants of the age of 10 years have been termed as nursery plants without
any legal and factual foundation. Nursery plants are those which are meant to be shifted and
planted in the orchard while in the present case, we see a clear inconsistency and
discrepancy in the report declaring the above plants as nursery plants which is entirely
unjustified.Confronted with this hard fact, the learned counsel for the respondent / acquiring
department was unable to convince the Court that the report submitted and acted upon by
the Collector in all probabilities is fair one. Thus we are of the firm view that appellants
were unjustifiably deprived of the compensation for the above plants for which they were
certainly entitled.”,page166 (underlining by Appellants).

Land Acquisition Collector refused to pay any compensation for Apple and Almond trees, of
age 10 years, on his assumption that these trees bear fruit in cold climate only, even after
obtaining the expert opinion contrary to his assumption. Referring to page109, reproduced
below, for ease of reference, is an extract from the impugned Award No. 4:

“The Fruit & Vegetable Board Development Officer N.W.F.P Ghazi, was examined whose
statement was recorded particularly regarding Apples, as to whether Apple trees if planted
can bear fruit in this part of the country, his answer was that if they are sprayed five times
then it can bear fruit, to this I do not agree for the reason that experience shows apple/
almond bear fruit in colder areas”.

Fruit Board Expert, Shafi-ur-Rehman, OW-3, maintained his opinion regarding Apple
bearing fruit in the area of suit lands and reiterated in his statement before the Referee Court,
on page 90 that, “apple trees in question were of ‘Anna’ kind which bears fruit in this part of
the country” (Malus domestica “Anna”).

Page 9 of 37
Land Acquisition Collector over-ruled the expert opinion which he was not qualified to do
and denied compensation of Apple and Almond trees to Appellants while the same Land
Acquisition Collector granted compensation of Apple trees in Award No. 3, acquiring
orchards for the same project. Reference is made to serial No. 1,Samiha Begum d/o
Mohammad Azam Khan on page146 and serial No. 6, Lal Muhammad s/o Jalal Muhammad
on page 147.

Hon’ble High Court granted partial relief to Appellants for the “Nursery” plants numbering
233. As a result of this partial relief, these trees get included in the total count of fruit trees
but no verdict was given by the Hon’ble court on 112 Apple and 3 Almond trees. There is no
apparent reason for this omission except non reading of the Appellants case file and turning
a blind eye because the Hon’ble court granted relief for Apple trees in clubbed case Farman
Ali vs Collector (C.A 1800 / 2005 (RFA No. 136 / 2003), page 170 is referred.

Since the Report acted upon by the Land Acquisition Collector, was found and declared by
the Hon’ble High Court to contain discrepancies, inconsistencies and unjustified decisions
without legal and factual foundations and the Hon’ble Appellate Court being not convinced
of the fairness of the Report, the only un-refuted record of counting of fruit trees left, is
the Report of Counting of Fruit trees by Fruit Board Expert given on pages 92-94.
Accordingly, Appellants contention of wrong counting, non-counting and wrong
classification of their fruit trees by the Land Acquisition Collector and overlooked by
Hon’ble Appellate Court, stands vindicated and entitles them to the compensation of
fruit trees based on the un-refuted record of counting prepared by Fruit Board expert,
given in the Report of Counting of Fruit Bearing Trees, on pages 92-94.

4.2. Valuation of Fruit Trees

WAPDA, the acquiring department, issued following policy Guidelines in connection with
acquisition of private property and payment of fair compensation to affectees:-

Letter No. PII – 2(48) / 89 dated Islamabad, the 8 th Feb. 1995 from Joint Secretary (W),
Ministry of Water & Power, Government of Pakistan, containing “GUIDELINES FOR JUST
AND FAIR ACQUISITION OF LAND & PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR GHAZI-
BAROTHA HYDROPOWER PROJECT”, (Refer pages 172 to 181).

Policy Guidelines of WAPDA for acquisition of Orchards was, “For orchards, the valuation
will be based on the net annual income from the orchard, capitalized for 20 years”.Refer
RAP, page 35, Para titled “Valuation of CROPS, ORCHARDS AND OTHER
TREES”.These WAPDA Policy Guidelines were followed in Award No.2 of adjacent
village Khalo where orchards were acquired for the same project but not followed in
the impugned award. During proceedings of Award No. 2, WAPDA asked the collector to
obtain the estimate of income of various species of fruit trees from the Fruit Board Expert as
noted in Award No. 2, para titled “COMPENSATION OF FRUIT BEARING TREES”,
page125, reproduced here for ease of reference:

Page 10 of 37
“Previously estimated cost of fruit bearing trees was provided by Agricultural Department
but the affectees raised the objection that the said estimate was not prepared in accordance
with the instructions of RAP whereinit has been mentioned that the estimate of fruit bearing
trees may be prepared on the basis of 20 years loss of income of trees. Hence the objector /
Department requested me to get the rate from Fruit Board at Ghazi. I approached the Fruit
Board and obtained the rate based on one year production / income per tree, vide their letter
No. 402 / FVDO / F.V.D.B Ghazi. I deducted expenditure like Manuring, Spray, Electricity
charges etc from the estimate.Letter No. 402/FVDO/F.V.D.B Ghazi is given on page No. 98.
(Underlining by Appellants)

Without refuting the estimated annual income from different species of fruit trees, provided
by Fruit Board Expert on page95, Land Acquisition Collector adopted his own estimate of
the net annual income from fruit trees, overruling the estimate of the Fruit Board Expert
which he was not qualified to do. Land Acquisition Collector, reduced the annual income of
different kinds of fruit trees and also reduced the period for capitalizing the annual income,
by subtracting the age of fruit trees at the time of award, from 20 years, against the WAPDA
Policy Guidelines. In accordance with this arbitrary formula of Land Acquisition Collector,
the capitalization period was different for different age groups of same type of fruit trees,
even in one orchard.

To give/acquire legality to these arbitrary actions of Land Acquisition Collector in award No.
4, Project authorities of WAPDA went into appeal against capitalizing of annual income of
fruit trees for 20 years in award No. 2 and for reducing the period for capitalizing the annual
income by subtracting the age of fruit trees at the time of award. These contentions of
WAPDA could not be sustained in 3 identical appeals No. RFA 65, 66 and 67/2004,
before the Hon’ble Peshawar High Court.

Hon’ble Abbottabad Bench of Peshawar High Court upheld the

i. market value of fruit trees as assessed by Fruit Board Expert and

ii. maintained period for capitalizing the annual income as 20 years ,and dismissed
these appeals. WAPDA did not go in appeal to Supreme Court of Pakistan against the
judgment of Hon’ble Bench of Peshawar High Court.

This Sub Issue 4.2, Valuation of Fruit Trees, gets resolved provided above noted two
judgments of Peshawar High Court are applied to this Appeal which is pending hearing
in honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan and Appellants continue to suffer on this
account unnecessarily for too long. Judgment of Peshawar High Court is referred on
page185, relevant parts of which are reproduced here for ease of reference:

“Thus the assessment of compensation was for an un-conditionalperiod of 20 yearsand

the potential income was to be assessed on market value of various species of fruit bearing
trees. Thus the deduction of the age of the trees at the time of acquisition was never
envisaged”, (emphasis provided). Regarding the annual income per tree, WAPDA did not
dispute the annual income per fruit tree based on the report of Fruit Board Expert given on
page95, in these appeals. It is observed by the Hon’ble Peshawar High Court in the
Page 11 of 37
 judgment, “Since the market value of the net produce of various species is not disputed,
therefore the market value as assessed by the expert has been included by the Acquisition
collector in the impugned award and the objection for reducing the period of 20 years by
deducting the present age of the trees was anafter-thought which was not included in the
policy guide-lines, as referred to hereinbefore”, (emphasis provided).

Appellants are, therefore, entitled to compensation of their orchard, based on the estimate of
annual income in the Report of Fruit Board Expert (page95) along with capitalization of the
net income for 20 years. For assessment of net annual income of Orchards, the methodology
adopted is referred to calculation sheet on page No. 187, containing the annual cost per fruit
tree by way of expenditure on manure, insecticide spray, and electricity charges for irrigation
etc. which are estimated as Rs 150.00 and had been accepted by WAPDA by not contesting.

Judgments of Superior Courts reported as PLD 2010 SC 878, 2007 SCMR1069, 1997 SCMR
1692, 1996 SCMR 1361and 1987 CLC 2095, are also referred in support of the contention.

ISSUE No. 5

Whether the Appellants are entitled to the Compensation of Fruit Trees Existing in the
Adjacent Un-acquired Portion of the Appellants’ Orchard which were Destroyed because of
Acquisition of the Source of Irrigation of those Fruit Trees?

Perusal of Khasra Gardawari, page 83, shows that Appellants’/Petitioners’ Orchard extended in
adjacent partially acquired khasra No. 27 and non-acquired khasra No. 28. This part of the
Orchard was also irrigated by the tube well located in khasra No. 25 which was acquired by
Land Acquisition Collector. As a result the irrigation water supply to this un-acquired portion of
the Orchard was cut off and these Orange trees died due to non-availability of irrigation water.

Fruit Board Expert, Shafi ur Rehman, OW-3, who visited the orchard of Petitioners, stated in his
statement on page90-91 that, “During acquisition proceedings, on the request of Collector, I had
inspected the orchard of objector and other affectees of village Ghara. My report in original is
sent to the Collector, the copy of which is EX OW 3/1 (3 sheets, pages 92-94). Hefurtherstated on
page90-91 that,“At page No. 3 is the list of trees which are not under acquisition but affected by
the acquisition of water supply …”.

Mr. Shafi ur Rahman recorded, the numbers, ownership, type and age of these fruit plants which
were outside of land acquisition boundary as 232 orange plants of age 5 years belonging to
Aurangzeb Khan (Petitioner), on page 92-94. The plants eventually perished completely because
of non-availability of irrigation water.Land Acquisition Collector did not give any compensation
for the loss of 232 Orange trees, destroyed due to consequences of acquisition of source of
irrigation. Reference in this respect is made to PLD 1982 SC 100 in support of the contention of
the Appellants/Petitioners.

The Petitioners are entitled to compensation of 232 orange plants, on the rates as assessed and
paid by WAPDA for Orange plants of the same age in Award No. 2, “Field Book of Counting &
Estimate of Fruit Trees”, is referred and copy is attached at page187.
Page 12 of 37
Page 13 of 37
ISSUE NO. 6

Compulsory Acquisition Charges

Land Acquisition Collector awarded the Compulsory Acquisition Charges at the rate of 15 % of
Assessed Valuation of Acquired Properties but Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted
the plea in CA 553 of 2003,reported in Supreme Court Monthly Review 2011 SCMR 118 that
WAPDA being an Authority established by an Act of the Parliament being a body corporate is a
Company within the meaning of Company as defined in section 3(c ) of Act. Section 23 of the
Land Acquisition Act has laid down that in addition to market value a sum of 25 %of the
market value as Compulsory Acquisition Charges has to be awarded if acquisition has
been made for a Company.In view of this judgment of honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan,
Appellants are also entitled to 25 % of the market value of their properties as Compulsory
Acquisition Charges.

ISSUE NO. 7

Lossdueto CurrencyDepreciation andits Mitigation

It is respectfully submitted that Appellants suffered huge losses for having been denied the
payment of compensation of their acquired properties since the announcement of impugned
award on April 21, 1996, for no fault of them. If the due payment was made to Appellants at the
time of announcing the impugned award, they could gainfully invest that amount. They were
denied such an opportunity but much more than that, Appellants’payable amount of
compensation at the time of Award has lost its worth tremendously whichis the direct result of
several arbitrary and discriminatory decisions by Land Acquisition Collector (the collector) and
the courts and extra ordinary delay in dispensing justice by the courts. Justice demands that
these losses should be mitigated and the amount now being paid to Appellants, after over 17
years, should be equal in its real worth to that amount payable at the time of the impugned
Award.

A thematic review working paper of the World Commission on Dams (WCD) titled
‘Displacement, Resettlement, Rehabilitation, Reparation, and Development’ lays down at its
page 31 that“The resettlement plan must provide for full disbursement of compensation a year
prior to any physical dislocation. If the relocation is delayed then there must be a provision to
pay interest on the compensation that is made in order to account for inflation and other
escalations in cost of replacement.” A copy of relevant extract is attached at Annex-I1.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the World Bank Group’s private sector investment
arm, in its publication titled ‘Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan’ delineates at
page 41 that “The RAP budget must include a justification of all assumptions made in
1
Working Paper World Commission on Dams (WCD) titled ‘Displacement, Resettlement, Rehabilitation,
Reparation, and Development’ November 2000. Web-link is
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINVRES/Resources/DisplaceResettleRehabilitationReparationDevFinal13m
ain.pdf OR
https://www.scribd.com/document/68282491/10-1-1-112
Page 14 of 37
calculating compensation rates and other cost estimates and must take into account both physical
and cost contingencies. As noted above, the cash value of compensation packages should be
indexed to U.S. dollars or another stable currency to protect those eligible for cash
compensation from local currency depreciation or inflation’. A copy of the relevant extract is
attached at Annex-II2.

WAPDA’s own document for Dassu Hydel Power Project titled ‘Social And Resettlement
Management Plan, Volume 5: Resettlement Action Plan’ states at section 8.9, page 112 that “The
compensation payments if delayed for more than a year after computation will be indexed
considering rate of inflation and rates prevailing at the time.”A copy of the relevant extract is
attached at Annex-III.

Accordingly, CurrencyDepreciation Factor (CDF) mitigating the effect of currency

depreciationfrom 1996-2014is calculated based on CPI (general group) Inflation and attached as
Annex-IV.

IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED that the WAPDA may be directed to grant compensation

through compassionate and affirmative consideration as requested in the discussion of Issues No
1 to 7 above and calculated to be Rs. 472,617,064.29 i.e. Rupees Four Hundred and Seventy
Two Million Six Hundred and Seventeen Thousand Sixty Four Onlyas shown at Annex-V.

(Aurangzeb Khan)
s/o Mir Aslam Khan
Village & PO Ghazi, Tehsil Ghazi
District Haripur
Cel No. 03005003660

2
IFC ‘Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan’. Web-link is
http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/22ad720048855b25880cda6a6515bb18/ResettlementHandbook.PDF?
MOD=AJPERES
Page 15 of 37
 ANNEX-A

APPELLANT’S ACQUIRED LANDED PROPERTY

Area as Acquired
Khata Khasra Area
Name per Share area
No. No. k-m-s
k-m-s k-m-s
285/1/339 24 10-02-0 4-13-4 4-13-4
285/338 25 29-11-0 13-13-3 13-13-3
216/261 26 12-01-0 6-0-4 6-0-4
216/261 27 4-5-0 2-2-5 0-2-0
Aurangzeb
21/25 32 4-12-0 2-6-0 0-1-0
Khan
287/342 33 7-0-0 3-10-0 3-10-o
287/342 34 3-16-0 1-18-0 1-18-0
287/342 35 3-1-0 1-19-0 1-19-0
61/72 36 2-19-0 1-9-5 1-9-5
Sub Total 33-6-7
Sardar Husain
285/338 25 29-11-0 0-5-2 0-5-2
Khan
Shahid Rauf 285/338 25 29-11-0 0-5-2 0-5-2
Qamar Hayat 285/338 25 29-11-0 1-6-3
1-19-0
Khan 285/1/339 24 10-02-0 0-12-6
Total 35-16-2

Page 16 of 37
 ANNEX-B

COUNTING, CLASSIFICATION AND VALUATION OF FRUIT TREES

COUNTING & CLASSIFICATION

FACTS

1. Collector asked Development Officer Fruit &Vegetable Board, Ghazi for assessment of
Orchards in the Project area. Refer EX-OW 4/1, page 98. Development Officer Fruit
Board, Ghazi submitted report for counting of fruit trees. The counting was performed by
field staff of Fruit Board, Ghazi, in presence of collector’s staff. EX-Ow 3/1, page 92 is
referred.

2. Without refuting the report EX-OW 3/1, collector prepared and acted upon another
report, EX-OW 4/R-11, page 153. This report was prepared by collector without
knowledge and involvement of Appellants and kept it secret till announcement of the
impugned award. No date of the Inspection which reportedly generated this Report is
given in the Report.

3. Notice under Sec. 9 & 10, LAA, was issued to Appellants, on 22/ 11/ 1995, requiring
them to appear before collector on 26/ 12/ 1995. The Notice did not contain any
information about counting and classification of fruit trees under acquisition; page 155 is
referred. Written response was submitted to collector on 26/12/1995 and it was requested
to fix some other day for this purpose after counting fruit trees EX-OW 4/5, points 5 and
8, page 157, is referred.

Collector took no action on Appellants request regarding fixing a date for counting of
fruit trees till the impugned award was announced. On announcement of the impugned
award it was learnt that collector had completed the hearing of the objections pursuant to
Notice under Sec. 9 and 10, on 31 October, 1995; 22 days before issuing the Notice to
Appellants on 22/ 11/ 1995; EX OW 4/R1, impugned award, Page 99 to 115, relevant
page No. 100, Para 3 is referred.

4. Fouling up the service of Notice under Sec. 9 & 10 to Appellants and denying Appellants
their valuable legal right to have contested the report prepared and acted upon by
collector, were serious irregularities which did not end here. Pursuant to the report
prepared and acted upon by collector, several illegal and discriminatory actions were
taken by collector, further making evident the biased and Malafide intentions of
collector, as listed below:-

Page 17 of 37
 i) Orange plants of age 5 years, Guava plants of age 6 years and Mango plants of age
10 years, were classified as “Nursery” by collector in the impugned award and
acquired without paying any compensation, violating Article 24 of Constitution of
Pakistan; impugned award page 111, and EX-OW 4/R-11, page 153 are referred.

Collector having different yard stick for different awards, paid compensation of
Orange plants of age 4 and 5 years, Guava plants of age 5 years and Mango plants
of ages 4, 5 and 9 years in award No. 3 of vill Ghazi, acquiring orchard for the
same project; Award No. 3 of village Ghazi, announced only 4months and 21 days
before impugned award; page 146 and 147 are referred.

ii) Double standards and discrimination do not end here. Collector classified
Appellants Apple plants of age 8 years and Almond plants of age 8 year as
“Ornamental” and acquired without paying any compensation. In contrast, collector
paid compensation of Apple plants in award No.3 of Village Ghazi; pages 146 &
147 are referred and Almond plants were paid in award No. 2 of vill Khalo; page
187 is referred.

iii) Collector reduced the number of fruit trees from 892 in report EX-OW 3/1 to 781
in report EX-OW 4/R-11, without refuting the report EX-OW 3/1.

5. Honb’le Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, commented on the report EX-OW
4/R- 11 in the judgment of impugned RFA No. 30/2000 dated 24/5/2005, on page 166,
that:

“Nursery plants are those which are meant to be shifted and planted in the orchard, while in
the present case, we see a clear inconsistency and discrepancy in the report declaring
the above plants as nursery plants which is entirely unjustified. Confronted with this
hard fact, the learned counsel for the respondents/acquiring department was unable to
convince the Court that the report submitted and acted upon by the collector, in all
probabilities is fair one.”

The Hon’ble Court, giving partial relief, allowed compensation of the plants classified
by collector as nursery, however, the yearly income from the fruit trees, allowed by the
Hon’ble Court was not according to the report of yearly income from fruit trees, EX-
OW3/2, on page 95, nor the compensation was capitalized for 20 years in accordance
with WAPDA Policy Guidelines in Resettlement Action Plan, EX-OW 1/R-1, page 35.

6. i) Hon’ble Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, gave no verdict in respect of

classification of 112 Apple and 3 Almond plants, though Hon’ ble Court allowed
compensation of Apple plants in clubbed RFA No.136/2003, page168 to 171,relevant

Page 18 of 37
 page 170 is referred. However compensation allowed was not as per report of yearly
income from fruit trees, EX-OW 3/2, page 95, nor capitalized for 20 years as per
WAPDA Policy Guidelines in RAP; EX-OW 1/R-1, page 35.

Giving no verdict on classification and compensation of Appellants’ Apple plants appears

to be an oversight.

ii) Fruit Board official, OW–3, Shafi ur Rehman, stated in his statement before learned
Referee Judge that, “apple trees in question were of ‘Ana’ kind which bears fruit in
this part of the country”; page 90 is referred.

iii) None other than collector, granted compensation of Apple plants in award No. 3 of
adjacent Vill. Ghazi, acquiring orchard for the same project; award No. 3, pag 146
and 147 are referred.

iv) compensation of Almond plant was paid in award No. 2 of Vill. Khalo, acquiring
orchard for the same proect; page 187 is referred. On the principle of non
discrimination Appellants are also entitled for the compensation of Almond plants.

7. Regarding reduction of 111 fruit trees in EX-OW 4/R-11 is concerned, it is submitted that:

i) Counting of fruit trees in EX-OW 3/1 was performed by an official of Fruit Board
Ghazi on orders of collector and in presence of his staff. It was a transparent
exercise in which collector did not find any reason to refute it and, thus, had lost the
existence of cause of action for recounting fruit trees.

ii) Even then, if collector considered necessary to recount the fruit trees, it should have
been a transparent exercise with the knowledge and involvement of Appellants. The
report, EX-OW 4/R-11(page 153), prepared and acted upon by collector, was based
on an un-dated site visit by collector, without knowledge of Appellants. Counting and
classification of trees in this report was not given in the Notice under Sec. 9 &10,
LAA. Keeping this report secret, fouling up the valuable legal rights of Appellants in
service of Notice under sec. 9 & 10, LAA, followed by inconsistent, discriminatory
and illegal actions, to the extent of violation of constitution of Pakistan, are all
follow-up actions of the report EX-OW 4/R-11. This report providing base to glaring
irregularities and injustice cannot be anything other than a fictitious document,
prepared to serve malicious agenda.

Claim:

In view of the submission as above, the Report EX-OW 4/R-11 is liable to be set aside
including classification of 145 orange plants, 15 guava plants and 73 mango plants,

Page 19 of 37
 classified as “nursery” and 112 apple plants and 3 almond plants, classified as
“ornamental”. In view of the report of counting of fruit trees, EX-OW 3/1, pages
90-94, remaining un-refuted, counting of fruit trees of Appellants, is allowed as in
EX-OW 3/1.

VALUATION OF FRUIT TREES

1. WAPDA Policy Guidelines for valuation of orchards in Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)
are covered by EX-OW 1/R-1, Article 8.4, Para 2, page 35. It is noted in this Article, that,
“For orchards, the valuation will be based on the net annual income from the orchard,
capitalized for 20 years”.

Collector asked Development Officer Fruit & Vegetable Board, Ghazi to assist in
assessment of orchards in the project area of Ghazi-Barotha Hydropower Project; EX-OW
4/1, page 98 is referred.

Fruit & Vegetable Development Officersubmitted estimate of yearly income from various types
of fruit trees vide letter No. 402/FVDO /FVDB /Ghazi, dated 14 September 1995; EX-
OW3/2, page 95 is referred.

2. Collector noted in impugned award, Para 15, page 108 that, “Further some of the
acquired land has fruit bearing trees. Itscompensation was assessed through the Fruit and
Vegetable Board with loss of earning for a period of twenty years, After having noted that,
the actions taken by collector in the impugned award contradicted his this statement.
Reference is made to impugned award, page 111, column titled “Income per tree”. First
figure in every row of this column is the yearly income of the fruit trees, as assessed by
collector, overruling the estimate of yearly income from fruit trees, submitted by Fruit
Board expert, Ex-OW 3/2, page 95. The second figure in the row is 20 minus the age of the
tree at the time of award. By overruling the estimate of yearly income from fruit trees of
Fruit Board Expert, without refuting it and without being qualified to do so, a fact
impliedly admitted by him when asked Fruit Board expert to assist him for assessment of
orchards vide collector’s letter, EX-OW 4/1, page 98, collector contradicted his statement
that the compensation of fruit trees was assessed through Fruit and Vegetable Board. By
reducing the period of loss of earnings by subtracting the age of fruit trees from 20,
collector contradicted the second part of his statement that “the compensation was
assessed with loss of earning for a period of twenty years”. The reduction of the 20 years
period is in violation of WAPDA and Government of Pakistan Policy Guidelines given in
RAP; EX-OW 1/R-1, page 35 and Ministry of Water and Power Letter No. PII-2(48)/ 89-A
dated Islamabad, the 8th Feb. 1995, page 172 to 176, relevant page 172, Para 1, is referred.
(Corresponding page of Better Copy is page No. 177).

These actions of collector were not only arbitrary but also discriminatory because the
compensation of orchards had already been assessed and paid in accordance with EX-OW
3/2 and capitalized for 20 years, in award No. 2 of village Khalo, acquiring orchards for
the same project, about 5 months before announcement of the impugned award. Field

Page 20 of 37
 Book of Counting and Estimate of Fruit Trees in award No. 2 of village Khalo, page 187,
is referred.

3. WAPDA also tried to wriggle out of their commitment of capitalizing the annual income
for 20 years in Resettlement Action Plan. WAPDA filed three Objection Petitions against
parts of Awards No.2, 4 and 6 for reducing the capitalizing period from 20 years by
deducting the age of fruit trees from 20 years. On dismissal of Objection Petitions, three
identical RFA Nos. 65 to 67/2004 were filed by WAPDA, which were also dismissed by
Hon’ble Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, vide the judgment dated 28.3.2007,
being without merit and upheld the period for capitalizing the annual income as 20 years;
page 185 is referred.

WAPDA did not dispute the market value of net produce of fruit trees as assessed by the
expert, which has been included by the acquisition collector in compensation payments of
award No. 2. WAPDA did not file appeal against the common judgment of RFA No. 65 of
2004 in august Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thus capitalizing period of 20 years and net
yearly income from fruit trees on the basis of estimate of Fruit Board expert (EX-OW3/2)
stands accepted by WAPDA and this matter has already reached finality in year 2007.S

4. Appellant’s contention for capitalizing the yearly income from fruit trees for 20 years,
gets further support from judgment of Hon’ble Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench in
RFA No. 29 of 1999; Malik Asghar Ali, v. Land Acquisition Collector Ghazi Barotha
Hydropower Project; relevant parts are quoted:-(Read the highlighted text from copy of
the RFA)

Allowing RFA No. 29 of 1999, Hon’ble Abbott Abad Bench of Peshawar High Court held,
in paragraph 6, that, (Read the highlighted text from copy of RFA 29/1999)

5. Constitution of Pakistan, Article 25, guarantees that all the citizens of Pakistan are equal
before law. Therefore all the citizens of Pakistan are to be treated equally without
discrimination. Estimate of annual income from fruit trees EX-OW 3/2, capitalized for 20
years was allowed and paid in award No. 2 of village Khalo and stands accepted by
WAPDA by not filing appeal against common judgment of RFA No. 65 of 2004. While in
the instant case, Appellants were discriminated against by deducting age of fruit trees at
the time of impugned award from the capitalizing period of 20 years and fixing much less
rates of fruit bearing trees in the impugned award than the rates awarded in award No.2.

Hence, considering the principle of equal treatment without discrimination, Appellants’ are
entitled to valuation of their fruit trees at the rate as given in EX-OW 3/2, capitalized for 20
years.

Type COUNTING IN COUNTING IN FRUIT TREES FRUIT TREES

ACQUIRED BUT
of Fruit Trees FRUIT BOARD IMPUGNED NOT
REPORT COUNTED COMPENSATION
Page 21 of 37
 EX-OW 3/1 AWARD IN NOT PAID
IMPUGNED
(Refer page 93) (Refer page 111) AWARD (Refer page 111)

Numbers Age Number Age (Yrs)

(Yrs) s

Orange 162 5 145 Nursery 17 145

Orange 184 8 127 8 57 -

Loquat 9 7 9 7 - -

Plum 47 9 40 9 7 -

Mango 350 10 257 10 - -

73 Nursery 20 73

Guava 25 6 Nursery 10 15

Apple 112 8 112 Ornamental - 112

Almond 3 8 3 Ornamental - 3

Total Fruit 892 - 781 - 111 348

Trees inside
Project Area

Number of 232 5 232 - - -

Fruit Trees
left outside
project area

Page 22 of 37
ANNEX-I

Page 23 of 37
 ANNEX-II

Page 24 of 37
Page 25 of 37
ANNEX-III

Page 26 of 37
 Annex-IV

CURRENCY DEPRECIATION FACTOR (CDF)

Inflation - Concepts

1. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods. Consequently,
Inflation reflects erosion in the purchase power of money.

2. The measure of price inflation is Inflation Rate which is a percentage increase in the average
level of prices over a year.If P0 is the current average price level and P-1 is the average price
level a year ago, the Inflation Rate during the year is [P 0 –P-1 /P-1] x 100 %. After a year the
purchasing power of a unit of currency, is reduced to 1/ (1 +Inflation Rate).

3. Price inflation, in a year, measured relative to a chosen base year, is called Price Index for
that year.

4. The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS), Government of Pakistan, formerly, Federal Bureau
of Statistics (FBS), Government of Pakistan, computes inflation indices likeConsumer Price
Index (CPI), Wholesale Price Index (WPI) and Sensitive Price Indicator (SPI). However, In
Pakistan, as well as in most countries of the world, the main focus for inflationary trends is
placed on the CPI, because it indicates the general rate of Inflation in the country and closely
represents the changes in the cost of living.

Page 27 of 37
Method of Deriving Currenc y Depreciation Factor (CDF)

Excess Amount P0, Payable over Awarded Amount on April21, 1996, is adjusted annually to FY
2020 based oninflation, as follows:

Indexing Calculations
Payment Inflation Indexed /Adjusted
(100 +Inflation)/100 × Original
Year Date/ Rate (%) Amount P0
Amount
FY 96 10.8 -- --
21/04/ 96 -- -- P0*
30/06/96 2.07 (100 + 2.07) ÷100 × P0 1.0207 × P0
FY 97 11.80 (100 +11.80) ÷100×1.02070 ×P0 1.14114 × P0
FY 98 7.8 (100 +7.8) ÷100×1.14114×P0 1.23015 × P0
FY 99 5.7 (100 + 5.7) ÷ 100×1.23015×P0 1.30027× P0
FY 00 3.6 (100 + 3.6) ÷100 ×1.30027×P0 1.34708×P0
FY 01 4.4 ( (100+4.4) ÷100 ×1.34708×P0 1.40635 × P0
FY 02 3.5 (100 + 3.5)÷100 × 1.40635×P0 1.45557 × P0
FY 03 3.1 (100 + 3.1)÷100 × 1.45557×P0 1.50069 ×P0
FY 04 4.6 (100 + 4.6)÷100 ×1.50069× P0 1.56972× P0
FY 05 9.3 (100 + 9.3)÷100 × 1.56972× P0 1.71570 × P0
FY 06 7.9 (100 + 7.9)÷100 × 1.71570 ×P0 1.85124 × P0
FY 07 7.8 (100 + 7.8)÷100 × 1.85124 ×P0 1.99564 × P0
FY 08 12.0 (100 +12.0)÷100× 1.99564 ×P0 2.23512 × P0
FY 09 20.8 (100 +20.8)÷100 ×2.23512× P0 2.70003× P0
FY 10 11.7 (100 + 11.7)÷100×2.70003 × P0 3.01593 ×P0
FY 11 11.4 (100 + 11.4)÷100×3.01593 × P0 3.35975 × P0
FY I2 11.0 (100 + 11.0)÷100×3.35975 × P0 3.72932 × P0
FY 13 7.4 (100 + 7.4)÷ 100× 3.72932 × P0 4.00529 ×P0
FY 14 8.6 (100 + 8.6)÷ 100 × 4.00529× P0 4.349745×P0
FY 15 4.5 (100 + 4.5)÷100 × 4.349745×P0 4.54548 ×P0
FY 16 2.86 (100 + 2.86 )÷100×4.54548 ×P0 4.67548 ×P0
FY 17 4.15 (100 + 4.15)÷100 ×4.67548 ×P0 4.86951 × P0
FY 18 3.93 (100 + 3.93)÷100 × 4.86951× P0 5.061× P0
FY 19 7.34 (100 +7.34) ÷100 × 5.061 ×P0 5.4325 × P0
FY20 10.7 (100+10.7) ÷ 100 × 5.4325×P0 6.0138**× P0
*P0is excess amount over awarded compensation payable on April 21, 1996;
** 6.0138 × P0 isexcess amount on June 30, 2020 equal in purchase power to P0.

Explanatory Notes on Indexing TABLE

a. The end date in this exercise is 30/06/2020, subject to revision till case reaches finality.

b. The Table above shows that P0 has lost 83.4 % (100 – (100/6.0138)) of its value till June 30,
2020 and in order to maintain its purchase power as on April 21, 1996, it should be
multiplied with 6.0138.

Page 28 of 37
c. The Inflation Data from FY 1996 to FY 2015 has been downloaded from Handbook of
Statistics on Pakistan Economy, Chapter 2.10; a five yearly electronic publication of State
Bank of Pakistan, with source Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Gov’t. of Pakistan, State Bank
Web Link; http://221.120.204.42/departments/stats/PakEconomy_HandBook/Chap-2.10.pdf

d. Inflation Rate for FY 2016 and FY 2017 has been obtained from SBP Annual Report-
Statistical Supplement FY 17, downloaded from State Bank of Pakistan Web
Link ;http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/annual/arFY17/Stats/Eng/Chapter-3.pdf

e. Inflation rate of years FY 2018 and FY 2019 has been obtained from SBP Annual Report-
Statistical Supplement FY 19, downloaded from State Bank of Pakistan Web
Link ;http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/annual/arFY19/Stats/Eng/Chapter-3.pdf

Page 29 of 37
 Annex-V

GHAZI-BAROTHA HYDROPOWER PROJECT

PETITIONERS’ CLAIMS

Aurangzeb Khan and Others……………. Petitioners Versus Collector Land Acquisition, Ghazi- Barotha Project, WAPDA etc.…………
Respondents

VALUATION OF LANDED PROPERTY - CLAIM 1

Amount
Acquired Compulsory
Payable
Rate/kanal Amount Acquisition Total Received Amount
Petitioner Type of Land Area Charges Including
(4 x Maira Rate) (Rs) Amount
(K- M-S) @ 25*% CAC @ 15%

(5)X 0.25
Col. (1) (2) (3) (4) (3)x(4)=(5) (5)+ (6)=(7) (7)X0.15=(8) (7)-(8)=(9)
= (6)

Aurangzeb
Bagh/Chahi/Abadi 33 - 6 -7 317,190.72 10,574,786.17 2,643,696.54 13,218,482.71 6,929,223.38 6,289,259.33
Khan

Page 30 of 37
QamarHayat
Bagh/Chahi/Abadi 1-19 -0 317,190.72 618,521.90 154,630.47 773,152.37 214,793.08 558,359.29
Khan

Sardar Husain
Bagh/Chahi/Abadi 0 – 5 -2 317,190.72 82,822.02 20,705.50 103,527.52 31,272.52 72,255.00
Khan

Shahid Rauf
Bagh/Chahi/Abadi 0–5-2 317,190.72 82,822.02 20,705.50 103,527.52 31,272.52 72,255.00
Khan

Total Payable Amount of Claim

35 -16 -2 317,190.72 11,358,952.11 2,839,738.03 14,198,690.14 7,206,561.50 6,992,128.62
-1

IMPROVEMENT OF MAIRA LAND TO BAGH/CHAHI/ABADI LAND –CLAIM 2

Improved Improved Area Rate Bagh/Chahi

Remaining
Acquired Improvement
Improved
Area Accounted for /Abadi Type of Rate Maira Cost Amount
Petitioner Type of Land Area to be
in Claim 1 Land Land (Difference in Payable
Accounted
(K - M – Two Rates)
(K-M-S) now
S)

Col.(1) (2) (3) (4) (3) – (4)=(5) (6) (7) (6)-(7)=(8) (5)x (8)=(9)

Aurangzeb
Bagh/Chai/Abadi 39-6-5 33-6-7 5-19-7 317,190.72 79,297.68 237,893.04 1,424,712.86
Khan

Qamar Hayat Bagh/Chai/Abadi 1-19-0 1-19-0 Nil -- -- -- --

Page 31 of 37
 Khan

Sardar Hussain
Bagh/Chai/Abadi 0-5-2 0-5-2 Nil -- -- -- --
Khan

Shahid Rauf
Bagh/Chai/Abadi 0-5-2 0-5-2 Nil -- -- -- --
Khan

Sub Total 41-16-0 35-16-2 5-19-7 -- -- -- --

Compulsory Acquisition Charges @ 25 % 356,178.21

Total payable Improvement Cost of Claim -2 1,780,891.07

Page 32 of 37
 Counting & Annual Income Net Annual Net Annual Compul Total Amount Received Compen-
Age per Tree as in Income per Income per Amount Compen- sation
Kind of
-sory Amount Compulsory
Fruit Board Fruit tree Fruit tree sation
Tree
0f Fruit Trees (Rs.) Acquisition in Award- Acquisition Payable
Expert Report (Rs.) Capitalized for (Rs.) 4
Charges
As in Fruit 20 Years Charges Now
Col. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) = (6)= (7)= (8)= (9)= {10} (11) (12)= (9) -

(7)+(8)
Malta 162 5 600/- 450/- 9000/- 1,458,000 364,500 1,822,500 -- -- 1,822,500
Malta 184 8 800/- 650/- 13000/- 2,392,000 598,000 2,990,000 457,200 68,580 2,464,220
Loquat 9 7 -- 200/- 4000/- 36,000 9,000 45,000 23,400 3,510 18,090

Plum 47 9 Amount in Award 4 is accepted and therefore no entries made in these columns.

Mango 350 10 1080/- 930/- 18600/- 6,510,000 1,627,500 8,137,500 899,500 134,925 7,103,075

Guava 25 6 300/- 150/- 3000/- 75,000 18,750 93,750 -- -- 93,750

Apple 112 8 900/- 750/- 15000/- 1,680,000 420,000 2,100,000 -- -- 2,100,000

Almond 3 8 -- 300/- 6000/- 18,000 4,500 22,500 -- -- 22,500

Orange 232 5 600/- 450/- 9000/- 2,088,000 522,000 2,610,000 -- -- 2,610,000

TOTAL Payable Amount of Claim - 3 14,257,00 3,564,250 17,821,250 1,380,100 207,015 16,234,13
0 5
VALUATION OF ORCHARD – Claim 3

VALUATION OF BUILT-UP PROPERTY - CLAIM 4

Page 33 of 37
BUILT-UP PROPERTY consisted of 4.1) Residential Built-up Property and 4. 2) Non Residential Bulit up Property:

4.1. House:

Covered Area of House (sq. m) 71.80

Covered Area Rate in RAP (Rs. per sq. m) 3,200.00

Cost of House (Rs. 71.8x3200) 229,760.00

Award No. 4 was announced on April 21, 1996, payments were made in June 1996 and the replacement Housings were built in year 1996-1997.
Covered Area Rate should have been enhanced equal to Inflation in FY 1997 which works out to be 13.01 % according to WPI Inflation Indices
obtained from Pakistan Statistical Year Book, prepared by Federal Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan,

Claimed Covered Area Rate (= Rs. 3,200 x 1.1301) 3,616.32

Compensation of Residential Property (House) on Claimed Covered Area Rate (= Rs. 71.80x3,616.32) 259,651.78

4.2 Built up Property (other than House)

Estimate of total Cost of Built up Property including House, in Award 4 was Rs.945, 491.09. This estimate was based on WAPDA Schedule of
Rates 1990 and was enhanced by 20% in Award No. 4 to take into account the price escalation in the period 1990 to 1996, except Compensation of
House, dealt with under Item 4.1, Foot Valve and Periphery Fence which were based on market rates at that time.

After deduction of the 3 items (at market rates) mentioned above, the Balance Amount Rs. [945,491 – (229,760 + 450 +
598,281.09
117,000)]

Total Claim 4
Page 34 of 37
Compensation RECEIVED under Award No. 4, Rs. [1.2*598,281.09+229,760+450+117,000] plus 15% CAC 1,224,919.40

Inflation during the period 1990-91 to 1995-96 is (176.90 – 100)/100 x 100 or 76.90 %. The compensation of Non Residential Property of
Appellants, based on WAPDA Schedule of Rates 1990, should have been enhanced by 76.90 % instead of 20 %, to fairly account for the effects of
Inflation during the period 1990-91 to 1995-96.

 Compensation CLAIMED, Rs. [1.7690*598,281.09+259,651.78+450+117,000] plus 25% CAC 1,794,326.28

 NET COMPENSATION RECEIVABLE Rs. (1,794,326.28-1,224,919.40) 569,406.88

5. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS:

 Compensation of Landed Property Claim 1 = Rs.6,992,128.62

 Improvement Cost of Maira Land to Bagh/Chahi/Abadi Claim 2 = Rs.1,780,891

 Compensation of Orchards Claim 3 = Rs.16,234,135

 Compensation of Built up Property Claim 4 = Rs.569,406.88

Amount payableon April 21, 1996, at the time of announcement of Award No. 4. = Rs. 25,576,561.57

6. MITIGATION OF CURRENCY DEPRECIATION& FINAL CLAIM AMOUNT:

Page 35 of 37
 Amount adjusted for Exch Adjusted for gold
Amount rate Amount 1996 1oz gold=$405
Amount
adjusted for 1996 $=PKR39 adjusted for 2021 1oz
Claim @ adjusted for
CDF=6.0138 1996$=1.70 2021$ 10% gold=$1931
1996 PKR 10% Simple
based on PK Annual US CPI 2.14% Compound
prices Interest
CPI 1996- http://www.dollartimes.com Interest (1996- 1996$=1.70(2021$)
(1996-2021)
2020 / 2021) (Ref World Gold
2021 $=PKR157 Council)

GRAN @
2,55,76,561.5 8,95,17,965.5 27,71,14,523.6
D 25% 15,38,11,750.5 17,50,35,494.44 20,73,09,083
7 0 7
TOTAL CAC

As calculated and shown in Annex-IV, the Currency Depreciation Factor between the years 1996 and 2020 for Pakistani Rupee is 6.0138.
Petitioners/Appellants claim for the payment of compensation amounting Rs. 25,576,561.57 at 1996 prices has been worked out above through five
different criteria for 2020 prices i.e. simple interest of 10%, Pakistan CDF, parity with US dollar, compound interest of 10% and parity with gold
prices. The most robust and fair evaluation of 1996 prices to 2020 prices is that obtained through parity with gold among these five criteria since it
covers local currency depreciation, local currency depreciation, exchange rate change and purchase power parity. Accordingly, the
Petitioners/Appellants claim is Rs. 20,73,09,083 i.e. Rupees Twenty crores seventy three lacs nine thousand and eighty three only.

Page 36 of 37
i
All pages referred to in this document pertain to the paper book for CM No. 145/2016 RFA 30/2000