2019 PLP 10 (CLCN)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD EJAZ KHAN, J.

The captioned appeals have been directed against the consolidated judgment and decrees passed by the learned Reference Judge, Kotli, on 23.09.2016 whereby the reference applications of the appellants, herein, were partially accepted while enhancing the meager compensation amount of the acquired land whereas a rival appeal has been filed by the appellants-Azad Government and others for setting-aside the same.

2. As common questions of facts and law are involved in these appeals, therefore, the same are decided through this single judgment.

3. Facts of Appeal No.48/2016 are that the petitioner-appellant filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 06.08.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559/1 measuring 08 Kanal, situated in Mozia Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil and District Kotli. It has been contended that the aforesaid land was acquired for construction of Roli Hills Housing Scheme, Kotli, which is situated, at prime location of Kotli city and, also at road side. It has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. It has been further contended that the land adjacent to the land in dispute of the said Mozia was acquired through award No.3/2009 for construction of Boys Intermediate College Gulhar Sharif to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- per Kanal besides 15% compulsory acquisition charges whereas the land of the petitioner-appellant was acquired in lieu of Rs.3,25,000/- P.K. bearing award No.6/2012 finalized on 24.05.2013. It has been stated that the compensation amount of the adjacent land was assessed as Rs.17,00,000/- while the Collector Land Acquisition himself admitted in the aforesaid award that one year's average price of the land of Mozia Gulhar Sharif comes to Rs.21,24,706/-, therefore, the petitioner-appellant should have been compensated by the Collector according to the market value of the acquired land. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C.. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioner-appellant and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing peanut price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

4. In Appeal No.49/2016 it has been claimed that petitioner-appellant filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 19.08.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559 measuring 01 Kanal, situated in Mozia Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil and District Kotli. It has been contended that the aforesaid land was acquired for construction of Roli Hills Housing Scheme, Kotli, which is situated, at prime location of Kotli city and, also at road side. It has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.46,00,000/- but the Collector Land Acquisition failed to consider the market value of the acquired land, therefore, the petitioner-appellant should have been compensated by the Collector according to the market value of the acquired land. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C.. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioner-appellant and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing peanut price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

5. Facts of Appeal No. 50/2016 are that petitioner-appellant filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 26.09.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559/1 measuring 28 Kanal 09 Marlas, situated in Mozia Jamalpur Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil District Kotli. It has been contended that the aforesaid land was acquired for construction of Roli Hills Housing Scheme, Kotli, which is situated, at prime location of Kotli city and, also at road side. It has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.50,00,000/- but the Collector Land Acquisition failed to consider the market value of the acquired land, therefore, the petitioner-appellant should have been compensated by the Collector according to the market value of the acquired land. It has been further contended that all acquisition proceedings have been initiated in his absence and neither the service of notice issued under section 5 of Land Acquisition Act, has been effected personally nor notices under sections 9 and 10 of the above Act were issued. It has been stated that the compensation amount of the acquired land was assessed as Rs.3,25,000/- P.K. while the Collector Land Acquisition himself admitted in the aforesaid award that one year's average price of the land of Mozia Gulhar Sharif comes to Rs.21,24,706/-, therefore, the petitioner-appellant should have been compensated by the Collector according to the market value of the acquired land. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from 3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C.. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioner-appellant and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing peanut price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

6. Facts of Appeal No.51/2016 are that the petitioners-appellants filed a reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 25.09.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559/1 measuring 28 Kanal, situated in Mozia Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil and District Kotli. It has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide its consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioners-appellants and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing meager compensation price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

7. Facts of Appeal No.52/2016 are that the petitioners-appellants filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 25.09.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559/1 measuring 03 Kanal, situated in Mozia Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil and District Kotli. It has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioners-appellants and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing meager compensation price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

8. Facts of Appeal No.53/2016 are that the petitioner-appellant filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 08.11.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559/1 measuring 01 Kanal, situated in Mozia Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil and District Kotli. It has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.60,00,000/-. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Court, Kotli, framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioners-appellants and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing meager compensation price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

9. Facts of Appeal No.54/2016 are that the petitioner-appellant filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 13.08.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559/1 measuring 02 Kanal, situated in Mozia Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil and District Kotli. However, the petitioner-appellant contended in this appeal that all the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in her absence and at that time he was abroad. It has been stated that through letter dated 20.08.2010 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Kotli, the price of residential land has been mentioned as Rs.36,000/- per Marla and price of commercial land of the said Mozia has been fixed as Rs.1,20,000/- per Marla while the award of her acquired land was issued on 24.05.2013 and on account of which she should have been compensated according to the market value of her land. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C. It has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioner-appellant and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing meager compensation price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

10. Facts of Appeal No.561/2016 are that the petitioner-appellant filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 06.09.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559/1 measuring 03 Kanal 12 Marlas, situated in Mozia Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil and District Kotli. However, the petitioner-appellant contended that he spent a huge amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (one crore) in construction of his R.C.C. residential house and he also kept saved his land for residential purpose and he is not ready to sell at any cost. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C. It has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.40,00,000/-. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioner-appellant and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing meager compensation price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

11. Facts of Appeal No.62/2016 are that the petitioner-appellant filed a reference application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before Referee Court on 13.08.2013 pertaining to land Survey No.559/1 measuring 01 Kanal, situated in Mozia Gulhar Sharif, Tehsil and District Kotli. However, it has been stated therein that the Collector Land Acquisition has wrongly assessed the compensation amount of Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. whereas market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C.. It has been averred that the learned Referee Court has also ignored the vital aspect of the matter and misread and non-read the evidence adduced by the petitioner-appellant and partially accepted the reference application while enhancing meager compensation price of the acquired land vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2016, hence, this appeal.

12. Facts of Appeal No.04/2017 are that the non-petitioners-appellants, herein, filed this appeal against the petitioners-respondents against the judgment dated 23.09.2016 passed by learned Referee Judge, Kotli. It has been contended that award bearing No.06/2012 finalized on 24.05.2013 has rightly been issued after considering the market value of the disputed land. It has been maintained that the market value of the acquired land has been assessed on the basis of one year's average price of the said Mozia whereas the petitioners in all the reference applications-appeals received the compensation amount without any protest and they have not protested against the compensation so fixed by the Collector Land Acquisition at the time of acquisition proceedings. It has been averred that in light of pleadings of the parties, the learned Referee Judge framed as many as four issues and directed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 without any legal justification enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,25,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. to Rs.10,00,000/- per Kanal along with 15% C.A.C. It has been averred that against the award of Collector Land Acquisition, the learned Referee Judge was not justified to enhance the compensation amount of the acquired land of petitioners-respondents on the basis of sale-deeds which pertains to different kind of land, hence, the compensation amount of the acquired land assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition may be restored while setting- aside the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2016 passed in the reference applications in the larger interest of justice.

13. The learned counsel for the appellants, more or less, reiterated the grounds taken in the appeals which have sufficiently been incorporated in pre-paras, hence, there is no need to narrate here in black and white. However, the learned counsel in support of their version referred to and relied upon the following case law:- i. [1997 MLD (Lahore) 2568]; ii. [1997 MLD (Lahore) 2577]; iii. [2007 SCR 468]; iv. [2011 SCMR 1244]; v. [2013 SCR 673]; vi. [2015 SCR 608]; vii. [2015 SCR 712]; and viii. [An un-reported judgment of this Court decided in Appeal No.04/2014 decided on 25.05.2016].

14. The learned counsel for respondents submitted comprehensive written arguments and also argued the case according to pleadings and referred to and relied upon the following case law:- i. [1995 CLC 548]; ii. [1996 CLC 2002]; iii. [1997 SCR (Lahore) 357]; iv. [1997 SCR 51]; v. [PLD 2001 (Lahore) 357]; vi. [2003 CLC 1864]; and vii. [2004 MLD 324].

15. I have heard the respective arguments advanced on behalf of parties and perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for respondents in light of relevant record made available on file carefully.

16. As far as the main contention of the learned counsel for respondents/appellants, appearing on behalf of Azad Government and others that the petitioners-appellants, herein, received the compensation amount of their acquired land without any protest so when the compensation amount is received by the landowners without protest, they have no locus standi to file the reference applications, therefore, the compensation of the acquired land has rightly been assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition the same may be restored has no substance because when the reference application is filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the interested person which is itself protest against the award of Collector Land Acquisition but neither objection was raised in written statement nor any evidence has been produced in this regard particularly when the facts, which were not pleaded in evidence cannot be raised during the course of arguments, hence, the arguments to that extent are hereby repelled.

17. Now, the point is to be seen as to whether the compensation amount assessed by the Collector and enhanced by Referee Court is quite and adequate according its market value or not? A perusal of record shows that the landowners produced oral witnesses i.e. Waseem Akram Clerk/Nazar, Ibrar Hussain Patwari Halqa Gulhar, Kh. Abdul Basit, Advocate, Muhammad Aziz, one of the petitioners-appellants, herein, Muhammad Sarwar. In support of oral evidence the appellants/ landowners produced Exh."PH" i.e. a certified copy of award No.3/2009 finalized on 26.02.2010 pertaining to construction of Boys Intermediate College Gulhar Sharif whereby the compensation of the acquired land of the said Mozia has been assessed by the Collector in sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C., Exh."PM" i.e. a certified copy of award whereby the land of the petitioners-appellants was acquired to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C., Exh."PG" i.e. a certified copy of letter dated 20.11.2012, Exh."PN", i.e. a certified copy of Asamiwar, Exh."PF" i.e. a certified copy of one year's average price of Mozia Gulhar with regard to year 2012 whereby average price of one year of the said Mozia has been assessed as Rs.21,24,706/- per Kanal, Exh."PA and PB" i.e. certified copies of Jamabandi pertaining to year 2007-2008 and Khasra Girdawri of the said Mozia (2012 Rabi), Exh."P.I" i.e. a certified copy of sale-deed dated 21.07.2012 whereby land measuring 08 Marlas was transferred in sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and the price of land of 01 Kanal comes to Rs.32,00,000/- P.K, Exh."PI" i.e. a certified copy of sale transaction dated 10.11.2012 whereby land measuring 16 Marlas was transferred to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-, Exh. "PJ", i.e. a certified copy of sale-deed dated 10.11.2012 whereby land measuring 01 Kanal was transferred in sum of Rs.3,50,000/- Exh."PL", i.e. a certified copy of sale transaction (date invisible) whereby land measuring 16 Marlas was transferred in sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, which pertains to Mozia Roli and Exh."PK", an attested copy of sale transaction dated 30.08.2010 whereby land measuring 02 Marlas was transferred in sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Non-petitioners produced only oral witness Tanvir Hussain Patwari, Development Authority, Kotli, in support of their version who admitted that it is correct that I have provided one year's average price of the said Mozia (Exh."PF") to Tehsildar, Kotli. He further deposed that he has sympathy with his department so he got recorded his statement in its favour because he is receiving salary from his department. The evidence produced by the respondents-appellants in support of their claim does not support their version rather the same clearly substantiates the claim of petitioners-appellants. It will be useful to reproduce here the relevant portion of the statement of witness Tanvir Hussain, Patwari Halqa, recorded on 17.09.2015 in cross-examination, which reads as under:- He further deposed in cross-examination that:-

18. It is apt to state here that there are three pivotal documentary evidence i.e. Exh."PH", i.e. a copy of award No.03/2009, Exh."PM", i.e. a copy of award No.06/2012 dated 24.05.2013 which pertains to acquired land of the petitioners-appellants and Exh."PF", i.e. a copy of one year's average price of the land pertaining to 1st December 2011 to December 2012.

19. I have perused documentary evidence, Exh. "PH" i.e. a certified copy of award No.03/2009 finalized on 26.02.2010 whereby, adjacent land of the said Mozia has been acquired and the compensation was assessed as Rs.17,00,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. and Exh."PM" i.e. award No.06/2012 finalized on 24.05.2013 whereby the land of the petitioners-appellants was acquired while assessing the compensation in sum of Rs.3,25,000/- besides 15% C.A.C. which are the pivotal piece of evidence, hence, in presence of these vital piece of evidence, the other evidence needs not to be discussed here in detail. As in award No.06/2012, relating to one year's average price of the acquired land, the Collector Land Acquisition himself admitted in the following words:- (Underlining is mine) Likewise, another award of the adjacent land Exh."PH" i.e. a certified copy of award No.03/2009 finalized on 26.02.2010, which was issued three years before from the matter in hand whereby, adjacent land of the said Mozia has been acquired for construction of Boys Intermediate College Gulhar Sharif for which the compensation was assessed as Rs.17,00,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. For proper perception, relevant portion of the award, supra, is reproduced as under:-

20. As the award No.03/2009 finalized on 26.02.2010, the adjacent land of the said Mozia was acquired for construction of Boys Intermediate College Gulhar Sharif in sum of Rs.17,00,000/- per Kanal besides 15% C.A.C. So when the Collector Land Acquisition in award himself admitted that one year's average price of the said Mozia comes to Rs.21,24,706/- then he was not justified to fix or assess the compensation amount less than that whereas on reference applications the learned Referee Court has rightly concluded the issues but in presence of the aforesaid pivotal documentary evidence has enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.3,50,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- with his sweet will and wish which is not permissible under law because the cases are to be decided on the strength of evidence rather will and wish of the Court. I am clear in my mind that the acquiring agency i.e Collector Land Acquisition while finalizing the award himself admitted one year's average price of the land as Rs.21,24,706/- per Kanal, therefore, the landowners are entitled to receive the said amount. An identical proposition has been resolved by the apex Court in which the similar controversy so admitted by the Collector Land Acquisition has been resolved, hence, for proper appreciation of the matter, I would like to reproduce a relevant portion of the case titled Maqsood Bibi and 6 others v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur (Zone-I) and 2 others [2013 SCR 973] in the following manner:- "After going through the above paragraphs of the award, it reveals that the Collector, Land Acquisition, was satisfied that the value of the acquired land, was not less than Rs.20,95,238/- per Kanal, maira awal, Rs.4,23,823/- per Kanal, banjar qadim, and Rs.11,02,040/- per Kanal, ghair mumkin. The reasoning assigned by the Collector, Land Acquisition, is awarding the compensation according to his own assessment that most of the land which was sold in the adjacent village Chaksawari was for the purpose of construction of the residential houses. But surprisingly the aspect of the case is that no such specific survey numbers have been mentioned which were sold for the above purpose. The findings have been given merely on presumption which is not supported by any evidence. In our estimation, such like findings, which are based on imaginations/presumptions, are not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, in our opinion, when the Collector Land Acquisition, came to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired is not less than the price mentioned in the above referred paragraphs on the basis of the sale-deeds executed in the adjacent village, there was no justification for the Collector Land Acquisition to deprive the land owners of the adequate compensation. The learned Reference Judge, while deciding the reference, has also failed to take into consideration the principles land down by the superior Courts, referred to above, and failed to award the compensation on the basis of assessment made by the Collector, Land Acquisition which was correctly assessed by him. All these factors have not been kept in mind by the High Court while dismissing the appeal.

10. In view of what has been discussed above, we have observed that the Collector Land Acquisition, who himself assessed the market value of the land and came to the conclusion that the market value of the land in question is not less than the market value mentioned in the above referred paragraphs of award, there was no justification to deviate from his own findings. The reasoning assigned by the Collector Land Acquisition, is not convincing."

21. Furthermore, to determine the compensation amount the guidelines were given by the apex Court of Pakistan in a case titled Murad Khan through his widow and 13 others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Peshawar and another [1999 SCMR 1647] in the following words:- "

13. Section 23 of the Act lays down, by way of criterion, that 'market value' of the land on the date of publication of notification under section 4 (ibid) would be the amount of the compensation. The expression 'market value' has not been defined in the Act. But there is considerable case-law on the point encompassing the period of about nine decades in which the expression in question has come to assume almost definite meaning. In this judgment we would, however, refer to a number of very important cases in which the expression 'market value' occurring in section 23 (ibid) has been judicially construed by various High Courts and even the Supreme Court of Pakistan. According to these judgments the following matters are to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation:- (i) The date from which the market value of the land can be estimated is given in Rule 13 of the North-West Frontier Province Circular No. 54 issued presumably under section 55 of the Act. (ii) The best method to work out the market value is the practical method of a prudent man laid down in section 3 of Evidence Act, to examine and analyze all the a material and evidence available on the point and to determine the price which a willing purchaser would pay to willing seller of the acquired land. (iii) Subsection (I) of section 23 of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation the Court shall take into consideration the market value, loss by reason of severing such land from his other land, acquisition injuriously affecting his other property or his earning in consequence of change of residence or place of business and damage, if any, resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. This, however, is not exhaustive of other injuries or loss which may be suffered by an owner on account of compulsory acquisition. (iv) The best method of determination of the market price of the plots of land under the acquisition is to rely on instances of sale of it near about the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. The next best method is to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent lands made shortly before and after the notification. When the market value is to be determined on the basis of the instances of sale of land in the neighboring locality, the potential value of the land need not be separately awarded because such sales cover the potential value. (v) It is obvious that the law provides determination of compensation not with reference to classification or nature of land but its market value at the relevant time. No doubt, for determining the market value, classification or the nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but that is not the whole truth. An area may be Banjar Qadeem or Barani as in he present case but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits. (vi) According to well-settled principle while determining the value of the compensation the market value of the land at the time of requisition/acquisition and its potentiality have to be kept in consideration. (vii) Consideration should be had to all the potential uses to which the land can be put, as well as all the advantages, present or future, which the land possesses in the hands of the owners. (viii) In determining the quantum of fair compensation the main criterion is the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction. (ix) The measure of fair compensation is the value of the property in open market which a seller voluntarily entering into a transaction of sale can reasonably demand from a purchaser ...... this means that we have to determine the value of the land in the open market at the relevant time on the assumption that the notification of acquisition did not exist. (x) While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the 'past sales' should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determined by examining (if necessary as Court-witness) local property dealers or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. In appropriate cases there should be no compunction even relying upon the oral testimony with respect to market value of the property intended to be acquired, because even while deciding cases involving question of life and death, the Court rely on oral testimony alone and do not insist on the production of documentary evidence. The credibility of such witnesses would, however, have to be kept in mind that it would be for the Court in each case to determine the weight to be attached to their testimony. It would be useful and even necessary, to examine such witnesses while determining the market prices of the land in questions because of the prevalent tendency that in order to save money on the purchases of stamp papers and to avoid the imposition of heavy gain tax levied on sale of property, people declare or show a much smaller amount as the price of the land purchased by them than the price actually paid. The 'previous sales' of the land, cannot, therefore, be always taken to be an accurate measure for determining the price of land intended to be acquired. (xi) The sale-deed and mutation entries do serve as an aid to the prevailing market value. (xii) It is a well-settled law that in cases of compulsory acquisition effort has to be made to find out what the market value of the acquired land was or could be on the material date. While so venturing the most important factor to be kept in mind would be the complexion and character of the acquired land on the material date. The potentialities it possessed on that date are also to be kept in view in determining a fair compensation to be awarded to the owner who is deprived of his land as a result of compulsory acquisition under the Act. (xiii) The value of the land of adjoining area which was simultaneously acquired and for which different formula of compensation has been adopted should be taken into consideration. (xiv) The phrase "market value of the land" as used in section 23(1) of the Act means 'value to the owner' and, therefore, such value must be the basis for determination of compensation. The standard must be not a subjective standard but an objective one. Ordinarily, the objective standard would be the price that owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The property must be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the determination but its potential value must be taken into consideration." (Underlinings are mine) Even otherwise contesting official respondents, herein, non-petitioners in reference applications have miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to discharge their onus of rebuttal, therefore, evidence adduced by the landowners remained un-rebutted, which are considered to be an admission on the part of the non-petitioners. Similar proposition has been resolved by the apex Court in a case titled Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary, having its office at New Secretariat Complex Muzaffarabad and 7 others v. Sahibzada Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan and others [2013 YLR 969] in which relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "According to the celebrated principle of law, the Courts have to decide the civil cases on the strength of the proof of the parties. If the evidence remains un-rebutted, it always under the provisions of Article 118 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 read with Order XVIII of the Civil Procedure Code, is treated as sufficient proof." My this view finds support from a case titled Akbar Ali and 04 others v. Ehsan Ellahi [PLD 1980 Lahore 145] wherein at page 151 it has been opined as under:- "The onus of an issue in a civil case is not permanently fixed but is constantly shifting, the moment some evidence is placed on record, this shifts the onus on the other side who would fail if he is unable to rebut."

22. It is well settled principle of law that while determining the compensation amount of the land in dispute the Court must ascertain the market value on the date of notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, one year's average price of land and consider various factors including the locality where the same is situated, however, it must be compared to adjacent land. Moreover, area, status of acquired land and its potentiality and improvement would be necessary factors. It is also established principle of law that a "Gold" is given for a "Gold" and not "Copper" for a "Gold". Similar proposition has been resolved in a case titled Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Mst. Iqbal Begum and others [PLD 2010 SC 719] in which it has been observed 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". Identical points came under consideration before the apex Court in a case titled Marawat Khan and 4 others v. Collector Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Zone-I, Mirpur and 2 others [2013 SCR 1224], wherein relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "Before proceedings further, it may be observed that the basic principle laid down by the apex Court of Pakistan and the apex Court of the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is that the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the relevant time, but also by a reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in future; and the market value is the potential value of the property at the time of acquisition which would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller, when both are actuated by business principles prevalent in the locality at that time. The price of the Land acquired had to be fixed in accordance with the aim and rule that willing buyer was ready to pay and willing seller was prepared to receive the price so fixed for whole of the land, had to be kept in view."

23. The evidence brought on record, the landowners-appellants succeeded to prove their case through cogent evidence, it is worthwhile to mention here that acquiring agency also failed to deny this aspect of the matter that at the time of award dated 24.05.2013 market price of acquired land was less than Rs.21,24,706/- per Kanal.

24. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that a cross appeal filed on behalf of Azad Government and others has been presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation is concerned. It appears from the perusal of record that appellants (Govt.) filed an application for issuance of certified copies of the impugned judgment and decrees before relevant authority on 14.04.2016 and concerned authority, after preparation, handed over the same on 15.12.2016, thus, contention raised by the learned counsel for appellants is devoid of any force. In consequence of that Appeal No.04 of 2017 would be deemed to have been filed within time. The case law referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents-appellants is quite different due to peculiar circumstances of the instant case because every case has its own facts, hence, there is no need to discuss here in detail.

25. The logical inference of the above discussion is that while modifying the impugned judgment and decrees of learned Referee Court, Kotli, dated 23.09.2016, the instant appeals are accepted and the appellants-landowners are entitled to receive the compensation amount of the acquired land to the tune of Rs.21,24,706/- per Kanal along with 15% Compulsory Acquisition Charges. Therefore, the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Referee Court, Kotli, are hereby modified in the terms as indicated hereinabove. Consequently, the rival appeal filed by the Azad Government and others, having no force, is hereby dismissed. The office is directed to annex a copy of this judgment with the other relevant files accordingly. ZC/42/HC(AJ&K) Order accordingly.