2008 PLP 58 (CLC)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Learned Senior Civil Judge, Swabi enhanced the amount of compensation of land from Rs.2,250 to Rs.6,591 per Marla i.e. Rs.1,31,839 per Kanal, on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide judgment dated 10-11-2003, which has been called in question through instant appeal, preferred on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector, Islamabad Peshawar Motorway Project, National Highway Authority, Risalpur and General Manager, Islamabad Peshawar Motorway Project, National Highway Authority, Burhan, appellants.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of Instant appeal are, that vide Award No.107 dated 15-3-2001, land measuring 321 Kanals, 10 Marlas, situated at Kunda Mera Tehsil Lahor, District Swabi, including land of Faqir Muhammad and others, respondents, measuring 24 Kanals 3, Marlas, was acquired by Land Acquisition Collector, Islamabad Peshawar Motorway Project, National Highway Authority, Risalpur, for the construction of Islamabad Peshawar. Motorway Project and a sum of Rs.2,250 per Marla was fixed as market price of the land acquired.

3. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondents filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Land Acquisition, Swabi, seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation. The reference was strongly resisted on various grounds. Hs many as eight issues, arising out of pleadings of the parties, were framed and after recording such evidence as the parties whisked to adduce, learned Referee Judge, by his judgment dated 10-11-2003, accepted the claim of the respondents and increased the rate of compensation from Rs.2,250 to Rs.6,591 per Marla for acquired land with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest.

4. Mr. Sikandar Rashid, Advocate, appearing for the appellants contended that while revising and enhancing, the amount of compensation, learned Referee Judge has not kept in view the criteria and principles governing the determination of compensation to be paid for the acquired land. He also contended that the evidence relied upon by the trial court could not be made basis for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel reiterated that respondents could not discharge the burden of proving that the price assessed by the Collector is wrong for the reason that the Collector while determining the rate of compensation considered matters which are mentioned in section 23 of the Laud Acquisition Act, 1894 and thus, the impugned judgment cannot be allowed to remain in the field.

5. Mr. Muhammad Fahim Advocate, representing the respondents, on the contrary, while opposing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants forcefully supported the impugned judgment and decree, maintaining that the material on record has been appraised and appreciated in legal fashion and the rate of compensation has been enhanced for valid reasons which are not open to legitimate exception.

6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

7. It is settled law that while determining the amount of compensation, court is to consider evidence brought on the record by the parties and further Land Acquisition Collector wile 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.

8. 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 I 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.

9. After examination of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned Referee Judge adverted to every aspect of the case, rightly decided the case and rendered a reasoned judgment which cannot be successfully challenged Nothing could be pointed out effectively and convincingly which may persuade me to disagree with the findings of the learned Acquisition Judge, based on a due appreciation of law and facts. The court was, thus justified to reply upon the same and to fix the compensation accordingly which is consistent with the criteria and the yardstick laid down by the superior courts. Needless to add that courts are always liberal and generous in fixing the quantum of compensation based on different consideration so that neither a land owner is deprived of his due rights nor the acquiring agency is unduly burdened in that behalf, as held in Muhammad Sharif v. Land Acquisition Collector and others 2004 CLC 1048 (Peshawar). For what has been discussed above, the appeal, having been found without substance, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./184/P Appeal dismissed.