2015 PLP 1258 (YLR)

MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.

This appeal has been preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and decree dated 11-11-2010 passed by the learned Referee Court/Senior Civil Judge, Swabi, whereby on acceptance of objection petition the rate of compensation amount has been enhanced from Rs.27476.63 per kanal to Rs.55,646 per kanal with compulsory charges and simple interest.

2. Brief facts of the appeal are that land situated in Mauza, Swabi was acquired through award No.1 dated 14-1-2005 for construction and preservation work to be executed by the Directorate of Archeology and Museum, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. A reference was submitted by the respondents and after recording pro and contra evidence, the learned Referee Court while partially accepting the objection petition, enhanced the amount as mentioned above. Dissatisfied from the judgment and decree, only the appellant/ Government Department preferred the present appeal.

3. The learned A.A.G. appearing on behalf of appellants argued that the amount of compensation has been enhanced unilaterally and the same is not supported by any material available on file. He further contended that the amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, at the time of award was well in conformity with the value of the property. At the last leg of his arguments, he requested that let a commission be appointed to determine the market value of the land.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners/ decree-holders supported the judgment of the Referee Court and contended that due to pendency of present appeal un-necessary delay has been caused in payment of the decretal amount and also Government has been burdened with the cost/interest, which is increasing day by day, so he argued that the matter be decided on the material available on record. Arguments heard and record perused.

5. From perusal of record, it reveals that notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was announced on 24-5-2001 whereas the award was announced on 14-1-2005 i.e. after a considerable period of about four years. This Court do not agree with the contention of learned A.A.G., that the amount assessed by the Collector was in conformity with law. The Collector assessed the amount of compensation simply on the basis of average for the year 2000-2001 while he was bound to take into consideration inflationary trend, depreciation in the currency between the date of notification under section 4 of Act, ibid. None of the factors have been considered by the learned Collector in this regard and also failed to follow the guideline laid by the superior Courts in this regard. Neither the potentiality of land nor the purpose for which it was required or of which the land was capable or being put was considered. It is well settled that the price of similar land situated in the vicinity sold during the preceding 12 months from the date of award and not 4/5 years could be considered for determination of award of compensation. The assessment was based upon one year average of 2000-2001 while the award was announced in the year 2004, thus same cannot be based upon as criteria for assessment, reliance can be laid upon the cases reported in Sardar Abdur Rauf v. Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner Abbottabad (1991 SCMR 2164) and Land Acquisition Collector Abbottabad v. Muhammad Iqbal (1992 SCMR 1245).

6. It is also well established that the interest of public are supreme and that the private interest are subordinate to interest of the State. Thus while construing the provision of the Act benefit has to be given to the subject.

7. The learned Referee Court rightly discarded the one year average for the year 2000-2001 relied upon by the Collector in the award and the average of 2004-2005 whereby the value of land come to Rs.55,646 has correctly been fixed in the interest of justice. Suffice it to say that it is not the market value but the word used is compensation, which has to be awarded to the land owners. Under the circumstances, this appeal being devoid of any force is dismissed. AG/565/P Appeal dismisse