2007 CLC 1189 (PLP)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

Judgment dated 18-6-2003 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Land Acquisition, Mardan, whereby he revised and enhanced the quantum of compensation on a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been called in question through instant appeal preferred on behalf of Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and others, appellants.

2. Facts leading to, the filing of instant appeal are, that land measuring 83 Kanals, 6 Marlas situated in Allahabad Khel, Tehsil and District Mardan, including the land of Fazal Malik and others, respondents, was acquired, by respondent No.2 i.e. Land Acquisition Collector, Swabi scarp WAPDA Mardan, for remodeling of "Khoro Drain", Mardan, vide Award No.15, dated 27-1-1997 and a sum of Rs.1,650 per Marla was fixed as market price of land acquired.

3. The respondents, feeling aggrieved, filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Land Acquisition Mardan, seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation. The reference was strongly resisted and claim of the respondents was denied. Relevant issues, arising out pleadings of the parties, were framed and after recording such evidence as the parties wished to adduce in support of their respective stances, learned Referee Judge, by his judgment dated 18-6-2003 partially accepted the claim of the respondents and increased the rate of compensation from Rs.1,650 per Marla to Rs.8,800 per Marla for acquired land i.e. one Kanal, 9 Marlas with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest per annum upon enhanced amount from the date of possession till final payment.

4. Mr. Fida Gul, Advocate, for the appellants confined his arguments to Issue No.12 and contended that while revising and enhancing the compensation, learned Referee Court 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 Court could not be made basis 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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thus, the impugned judgment is not sustainable.

5. Mr. Adam Khan, Advocate, representing the respondent, while opposing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants supported the impugned judgment and decree whole-heartedly and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. .

6. I have heard in detail arguments and submissions of learned counsel for the parties keeping in view the material on the file and case-law on the subject.

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 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.

8. Mere classification or nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but not as absolute one. An area may be "Banjar" or "Barani" but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhoods, potentiality or other benefits.

9. 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.

10. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned Referee Court adverted to every aspect of the case, rightly decided the issue agitated before him 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 on issue No.12 based on a due appreciation of law and facts. It may be observed that statement of objector as to the location, situation, vicinity, neighbourhood and potential value of the land has remained unrebutted through any cogent evidence. The Court was, thus, justified to rely 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).

12. Pursuant to above, I see no valid justification to take a different view of the matter than has been taken by the learned Referee Court. The appeal having been found bereft of substance stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./110/P Appeal dismissed.