2011 CLC 532 (PLP)

Land measuring 15 kanals and 5 marlas in Khasra No.4555/569, situated in the Revenue Estate of Kallar Kahar, District Chakwal belonging to the appellant was acquired for the construction of the Lahore-Islamabad Motorway by the National Highway Authority. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) vide award dated 28-2-1993 fixed the compensation at the following rate: Kind of Land Price of Kanal Maira. Rs. 4,000 Barani/Awal. Rs. 4,500 Chahi. Rs. 7,000 Flail. Rs. 25,000 Bunjar Kham. Rs. 800 Bunjar Qadeem. Rs. 1,000 Ghair Mumkin Parr. Rs. 500 Ghair Mumkin Ban and Kassi. Rs. 700 Ghair Mumkin. Rs. 800 Ghair Mumkin Kundar. Rs. 800 Ghair Mumkin Rasta. Rs. 800 In case of the appellant, the rate of the compensation was fixed at Rs.4,000 per kanal. Dissatisfied with the rate of compensation the appellant made an application before the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) which was referred to the learned Senior Civil Judge Chakwal. It was claimed that the market value at the relevant time was not less than Rs,1,60,000 per Kanal. After framing the issues, the parties led oral and documental, evidence. The learned Referee Court vide the order/award dated 7-2-2002 enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs. 4,000 to Rs.8,000 per kanal. The appellant was also held entitled for compulsory charges of 15% of the market value.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to the documentary evidence produced by the appellant the market value is more than the one determined by the learned, Referee Court. The learned Referee Court has suffered from non-reading of the evidence. The learned Referee Court has not taken into consideration the future potential of the land in question and has also not taken into consideration the location of the land which is in the proximity of the tourist's resort of Kallar Kahar and boasts of all the amenities. It is lastly argued that in view of the sky rocketing inflation, the appellant is also entitled to the mark up on the total sum not so far paid to him. Reliance is placed on "2010 SCMR 92" titled Wapda through S.E. Acquiring Cell CRBC Project Wapda D.I. Khan and another v. Syed Ali and others "PLC) 2010 Supreme Court 719" titled Land Acquisition Collector v. Mst. Iqbal Begum and others, "2007 SCMR 1054" titled Chairman, Wapda and others v. Sarfraz Khan and another.

3. On the other hand the learned counsel Mr. Abid Hussain Ranjha appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 supports the award made by the learned Referee Court and opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that the rate of compensation fixed by the learned Referee Court is already exorbitant and the appellant is not entitled to the enhancement of the compensation.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

5. The appellant has appended the copies of various mutations sanctioned on various dates as Exh. A-1 to Exh. A-9. Under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, one of the matters to be considered for determining the amount of compensation is market value of the land acquired through notification under section 4 of the said Act. Notification was issued on 2-3-1992. The market value has to be ascertained on the basis of average sale price of the land sold in the y Revenue Estate during the previous one year. The mutations Exhs.A-6 to A-9 after the issuance of the notification cannot be taken into consideration Exhs. A-1 to A-4 having been sanctioned more than one year prior to the notification cannot also be taken into consideration. The only sale that could be taken into consideration took place on 2-4-1991. In this respect Mutation No. 3219, Exh.A-5 was sanctioned. The respondents have been unable to produce any documentary evidence showing market value at less rate. The price paid in this transaction is Rs. 1,00,000 per Kanal. The same is to be taken as the average price of L the area. The style of the Land Acquisition Collector in fixing the amount of compensation was motivated with his desire to please the authorities to prove himself beneficial to them. His approach was invidious and oppressive towards the lamenting landowners. He has failed to take into consideration all the factors while determining the amount of compensation. The meagerness of the compensation has added insult to the injury sustained by the appellant. An affected landowner who is compulsorily made to quit his land and is forced to say farewell F to the place that cradled him and harbours the bones of his forefathers, has to he dealt with generously and delicately. The rate of compensation should have been slid up and then fixed towards a higher limit permissible under law. The term `prevailing Market value' at the time of publication of notification has to be interpreted and analyzed very carefully. It is the value that is to be considered while fixing the amount of compensation, the value, of which the price, is a small component, the value on account of the tenacity at the owners with the land. The acquisition is a unilateral act of the acquisition authority and is usually unacceptable but is merely tolerated by the other party. This unwilling vendor has to be compensated by more than mere payment of price. The compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Referee Court in their awards is meagre. Reliance is also placed on "PLD 2010 Supreme Court 878" titled Sadaqat Ali Khan through LRs. and others v. Collector Land Acquisition "PLD 2010 Peshawar 26" titled Major (R) Akbar Jan v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Sui Northern Gas Pipeline (Ltd.) Peshawar and 2 others. In order to determine the amount of compensation, the market value, the future potential, the proximity of I the land and amenities attached thereto have to be considered. Since the land in question is situated in the Revenue Estate of Kalar Kahar which is already a well developed tourist spot, therefore, it can safely be held that the land in question has a future potential. Keeping in view the market value, the future potential and the promimity of the land, the amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 1,10,000 (one lac and ten thousand) per kanal. As far ,the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned that he is also entitled to receive the mark-up, cannot be acceded to as ht has already been granted received the compulsory acquisition charges. This petition is accepted. M.U.Y./A-277/L Petition accepted.