2016 PLP 87 (CLCN)

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.

The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence, Rawalpindi and another appellants have filed this Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree of learned Referee Court/Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra, dated 11.12.2012, vide which the objection petition of respondents was allowed.

2. Brief and relevant facts leading to this appeal are that Land Acquisition Collector, Mansehra on the request of appellants acquired the landed property etc of the respondents at public expense for public purpose and awarded the compensation amount. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondents preferred Objection Petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was referred by the Land Acquisition Collector to the Referee Court for adjudication. The Referee Court after recording pro and contra evidence and hearing the parties accepted the objection petition vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that the objection petition of the respondents were remanded time and again by this Court as well as the Apex Court and ultimately the Referee Court fixed the compensation of the acquired land at Rs.2,00,000/- per kanal.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. A perusal of record would reveal that the learned Referee Court after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties appointed a local commission for spot inspection and submission of his report regarding determination of fair compensation of the acquired land. The local commissioner after visiting the spot and taking into consideration the location of the acquired land and its prospective potential value has assessed the value of land, which has not been objected to by the respondents whereas the appellants raised certain objections and cross-examined the local commissioner at length but no illegality or deviation from the order of the court regarding assessment of value has been brought on record. There is nothing on record, which could suggest that either the report of local commissioner is illegal or arbitrary.

5. Now it is settled law that the present trend of extra ordinary hike of landed property, the criteria of one year average cannot be made basis for assessment of compensation amount of acquired land. In case of acquisition of land, the land is acquired in the interest of general public at public expense on the basis of sacrifice of an individual, which requires to adequately compensating the individual in extra ordinary manner and the compensation should be fixed in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee. In this regard wisdom can be drawn from case titled "Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Mst. Iqbal Begum and others" reported as PLD 2010 Supreme Court 719, wherein it has been held as under:- "The principles laid down for determination of compensation reflect anxiety of law-giver to compensate those deprived of property adequately enough so as to be given gold for gold and not copper for gold" ............ One year's average of sales taking place before publication of notification under section 4 of similar land is merely one of the modes of ascertaining market value and is not an absolute yardstick for assessment of compensation. Moreover, status of acquired land, its potentialities and its likelihood of development and improvement would be necessary factors for determining rate of compensation."

6. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in its award is not found according to legal equitable criteria, which has been laid down under the law and the wisdom laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, for proper assessment of compensation the only available piece of evidence is the report of local commissioner appointed for the purpose, who after spot inspection in presence of the parties, consulting the revenue record submitted a detailed report, which was rightly relied upon by the referee court. The acquired property is situated in one compact block and compensation recommended by the local commissioner after spot inspection is not only found reasonable but genuine, legal, proper, just and equitable according to the prevailing trend of hike in the prices of landed property, especially when admittedly the acquired land has a prospective future potentiality, as it is situated near the road side. In this respect this Court has already settled the principle for assessment of land so acquired in case of Sultan Shah and another v. Land Acquisition Collector Swabi and others reported as PLD 2011 Peshawar page 60, wherein it has been held as under:- "Land acquisition

Compensation, of

Essential factor liable to be considered being potential value of acquired property in the light of future prospectus of similarly placed property

"Yaksala" or "Punjsalas" could and should not be only considered for such determination".

7. Admittedly, the acquired property is situated near the road, which is not only important for commercial point of view but for the purpose of residential as well and the land situated near the road is always considered more valuable than the land situated at some distance from the road. The amount enhanced by the learned referee Judge in no case is found either exaggerated or exorbitant keeping in view the high trend of prices of landed property in the area and is maintained.

8. Consequently, this appeal being without substance is dismissed with no order as to costs. ARK/191/P Appeal dismissed.