P L D 2008 Supreme Court 386 (PLP)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

This appeal, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is directed against the judgment dated 11-9-2006 passed by learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby judgment and decree dated 31-5-2000 of learned Senior Judge/Referee Court, Kasur, has been set aside, maintaining award of Land Acquisition Collector and reducing compensation of the land acquired.

2. Necessary facts for disposal of instant appeal are, that National Highway Authority initiated proceedings for acquisition of land for constructing an additional carriage way on a portion of the Multan Road. A notification under section 4 of the Act ibid was issued on 12-1-1993. The total land acquired for said project was 18 kanals and 13 marlas in village Lakhankey, Tehsil Pattoki, District Kasur. Respondents were owners of 4 kanals and 9 marlas out of the notified area. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered an award dated 18-8-1996 determining the price of the land as Rs.427.58 per marla. Compulsory acquisition charges were awarded at the rate of 15% together with 8% compound interest. Additional compensation amounting to Rs.19,67,479 by way of damages and Rs.2,02,996 for loss of goodwill in respect of a petrol pump and service station constructed on the acquired land was also awarded. Being dissatisfied with the award, respondents initiated proceedings under section 18 of the Act ibid resulting in a reference made to the Senior Civil Judge/Referee Court, Kasur, to determine the compensation to be awarded to the respondents. The Referee Court enhanced the amount of award from Rs.427.58 to Rs.35,000 per marla. The quantum of damages was enhanced to Rs.38,26,639 less the amount of Rs.2,02,

996. Compulsory acquisition charges and compounded interest were maintained.

3. Feeling aggrieved, respondents filed Regular First Appeal before learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby judgment of the referee Court was set aside by fixing compensation for the acquired land at the rate, of Rs.3,260.86 per marla.

4. M/s. Sardar Abdul Majeed Dogar, and Khan Muhammad Vehniwal, Advocates, appearing on behalf of appellants, attempted to argue that the impugned judgment is against the weight of evidence on record and amount of compensation has been reduced to Rs.3,260.86 per marla without any justifiable reason and criteria and principle governing determination of compensation to be paid for the acquired land has not been kept in consideration and learned High Court has ignored the question of damages.

5. Mr. Jehanzaib Khan Bharwana, Advocate Supreme Court for respondents opposed the above contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that learned High Court has given valid reasons for reducing the rate of compensation which are based on correct appreciation of evidence and hardly require interference by this Court.

6. It needs no reiteration that while determining the amount of compensation, Court is to consider evidence brought on the record by the parties and further Land Acquisition Collector while determining compensation of acquired land has also to consider the potential and future prospective of land in addition to one year average. While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the past sale should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentiality may also be determined by examining other facts.

7. An assessment of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put and the impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on having regard to all these factors.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on file, we find that in computing the sale price of the acquired land, learned High Court has made basis of a single sale in the concerned Revenue Record whereas learned Referee Court has taken into consideration the average sale price of previous year pertaining to sale of commercial land. The learned High Court has totally ignored the question of damages altogether although acquisition department itself admitted the damages suffered by the appellants-affectees but awarded meagre damages as compared to actual loss assessed and granted by learned Referee Court. The impugned judgment of learned Division Bench of High Court as rightly contended is the result of non-reading and misreading of evidence and all other relevant record and as such cannot be allowed to remain intact.

9. Pursuant to above, this appeal is allowed, impugned judgment dated 11-9-2006 of learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, is set aside and judgment and decree dated 31-5-2000 of learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Court, Kasur, is restored. We make no order as to costs. M.B.A./H-19/S Appeal allowe