P L D 2000 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1 (PLP)

SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--These appeals have been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 18-4-1998, whereby accepting the appeal of the respondent the compensation amount payable to the landowners was enhanced to Rs.60,000 per Kanal plus 15% ' Jabrana'. The brief facts of the case are that the Government acquired land vide award No.5 of 1993 for the construction of road from Muzaffarabad town to Airport, Muzaffarabad, which was to pass through different villages. The Collector, Land Acquisition fixed the compensation amount on the basis of-Inds of various pieces of land which varied from Rs.30,000 to Rs.60,000 per Kanal plus 15 % 'Jabrana'. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the landowner initiated reference to the District Judge, Muzaffarabad. The learned District Judge after taking necessary proceedings in the case while deciding Issue No.2 enhanced the amount of compensation depending upon the kinds of land by Rs.30,000, Rs.35,000 and Rs.40,000 per Kanal without adverting to the evidence which the respondent had produced before him. The Government as well as the respondent went up in appeal in the High Court against the findings of the District Judge. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Government and accepted the appeal filed by respondent and fixed the market value of land acquired as Rs.60,000 per Kanal without any reference to the kind of land or the evidence which was produced by the respondent. It is against the aforesaid order of the High Court that the present appeals have been preferred. Kh. Atta Ullah, Additional Advocate.General, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the learning District Judge enhanced the amount of land acquired without appreciating the evidence adduced by the respondent arbitrarily and on appeal the amount was-further enhanced to the tune of Rs.60,000 per Kanal without any reference .to the market value of the suit land. The learned counsel has submitted that the compensation to the landowner is to be according to the market value of the land acquired and it was for the landowner to prove that the market value fixed by the Collector through award was inadequate. The learned counsel has further submitted that neither the District Judge nor the High Coup followed the scheme of law while fixing the market value of the land acquired and instead adopted the uniform formula for ascertaining the compensation which is not sustainable. In reply Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, the learned counsel for the respondent, did not seriously oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the market value of the suit land is to be determined in light of the evidence brought on record instead of adopting the uniform formula, irrespective of the evidence which was led by the parties. However, the learned counsel has submitted that in the instant case the evidence was adduced by the respondent according to which the market value of the suit land was more than what was fixed by the District Judge. He has further submitted that no evidence was adduced in rebuttal by the appellant, here in, thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent was entitled to more compensation per Kanal than what was fixed by the District Judge. We have given due consideration to the arguments. A perusal of these judgment of the High Court reveals that the learned District Judge after recording the respondent ' T the appellant, herein, '~ On appeal 1 w Rs.60,000 per 15% ordered by the District Judge and the evidence on record is not sustainable of the impugned judgment that as the > be A used for the construction of the road, the ebmpensatidn should be paid at uniform rate and not according to the kinds of land. This is violative of principles envisaged in section 23 of the Land. Acquisition Act according to which the compensation is to be assessed according to the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is well-accepted principle of law that the market value means the value of land which a willing purchaser is prepared to pay and a willing seller is prepared to sell for. The inclination of the vendor to part with his land and urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy or the use to which the land would be put after the acquisition are to be ignored. Under clause (6) of section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act any increase to the value of other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use for which the land was acquired, is not to be considered while ascertaining the market value. Similarly, it cannot be said that as the land acquired in a case was to be used for the construction of road, the compensation is to be paid at uniform rate, irrespective of the kinds of land and other recognised principles on the basis of which the market value is to be determined. A reference may be made to the following authorities to elucidate the matter: In case reported as West Pakistan WAPDA v. Mst. Hiran Begum 1972 SCMR 138, it has been held that the best guide to fix the market value of the land is the price on which the lands were sold in the adjoining village. In case reported as District Welfare Officer, Guntur v. Pillalamarri Ramakrishans Somayajuly and others AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 328, it was held that while dealing with the market value of the land the considerations envisaged under section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act should be kept in mind and those stipulated under section 24 of the said Act must be excluded from consideration. In a case reported as Deputy Commissioner, Karachi v. Abu Bakar and others PLD 1972 Karachi 128, it has been held that the price fetched by sale of the adjoining land closest in point of time to the notification issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would furnish a reliable guide for determining the market value of the suit land. In the light of the what has been stated above the impugned judgments of the District Judge and the High Court are not sustainable, because the same are violative of the settled principles of law which are to be kept in mind while determining the market value of the land. Therefore, we accept both the above titled appeals and remand the case to the District Judge who shall rehear the case in light of the observations made above and decide the reference afresh according to law. H.B.T./458SC(AJ&K) Appeals accepted.