' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.---Aggrieved from the detision dated 16-5-1991, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar, upon a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), Qazi Zargham-ul-Haq and others, appellants have instituted the instant appeal under section 96, C.P.C. Read with section 54 of the Act.
2. The facts in concise form, are that the appellants were owners of land ,situated in Mauza Nanak Chand, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar. Out of their lands, 3 Kanals and 15 Marlas consisting of Rectangle No.298/11, Killa No.4 (less than one Marla), Killa No.5 (3 Kanals 11 Marlas) and Killa No.6 (4 Marlas), were acquired for construction of a Grid Station by the WAPDA. Notification under section .4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 24th November, 1982, while the award under section 11 of the Act was announced by the Collector on 31-5-1984. Feeling dissatisfied with the rate of compensation awarded . By the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants applied to the Collector requiring him to refer the matter of the Civil Court, for determination of the amount of compensation, awarded by him in the award. Upon the reference under section 18 of the Act, the learned Senior Civil Judge commenced the proceedings to adjudicate upon the objections raised by the appellants in their objection petition. After submission of written reply to the above-noted reference, learned Senior Civil Judge framed 5 issues, upon which both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in the said Court. After evaluating and appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the reference vide order dated 16-5-1991. Hence, this appeal.
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the Referee Court has failed to appreciate and consider the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the appellants. To be concise upon the matter in issue, the- appellants have claimed Rs.5,000 per Marla for the land acquired from them while the award had granted them the amount of compensation, at the rate of Rs.10,000 to. Rs.12,000 per acre, which if calculated comes to Rs.62/50 to Rs.75 per Marla. According to the appellants counsel learned Court below has failed to apply the provisions of section 23 of the Act in the case. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the acquired land of the appellants were adjacent to the road and near to the hospital, Railway Station and Government High School, etc. And had the potential value of residential and commercial sites.
' He has referred to Exh. P-1, copy of the order, which was announced by Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar in case titled as "Fazal Saeed, etc. v. Water and Power Development Authority" on 17- 5-1986. He has also referred to registered sale-deed dated 27-3-1982 (Exh. P-2) in which sale of 15 Marlas of land was effected for Rs.7,000 in the same Mauza i.e. Nanak Chand. He has also referred to Exh. P-3, copy of Shajra Qistwar to display that their acquired land was on the edge of another adjacent Mauza Chak Abdullah Autar, and that for the land of that Mauza Abdullah Autar, the price was determined at the rate of Rs.1250 per Marla. He has relied upon the judgment dated 17-6-1987 passed by this Court in R.F.As. 70 and 84 of 1986 (Exh. R-16) also.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent WAPDA has vehemently refuted the claim of the appellants with regard to the enhancement of the quantum of compensation and has supported the impugned judgment.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record minutely.
6. Before the value of land is assessed, it is necessary to take into consideration the seat and site of the acquired land, as the correct evaluation of the price can be made only when the exact situation is determined and its importance is realized by the Acquiring Agency or the adjudicating Referee Court. In the instant case, grievance of the appellants is that their land was near to the Railway Station, Bus Stand, High School, etc, and had a potential value of being treated and assessed as commercial and residential. The reference to judgment dated 17-6-1987 passed by this Court, produced by the appellants, before the Court below as Exh.R-16 in the case, was relevant document for the correct determination of the rate of compensation of land in dispute. According to the appellants, the disputed land acquired in the above mentioned judgment was adjacent to the land in dispute of the appellants. Reference has been made to Exh. P-3 to show that the land in dispute was at the edge of dividing line of both these Mauzas (Nanak Chand and Chak Abdullah Autar). The land acquired in Mauza Chak Abdullah Autar, adjacent to the land in dispute, was determined at the rate of Rs.1250 per Marla, therefore, land in dispute was also to be treated alike.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment has lost sight of this material point of determination as to the nature and character of the property in dispute at the time of its acquisition. The potential value of the land in dispute was also to be considered in accordance with section 23 of the Act, prior to the fixation of compensation of the land in dispute.
7. For what has been noted above, we accept this appeal and remand the case to the learned trial Court below to determine the exact site, nature and character of the property at the time of its acquisition and the importance of its site due to alleged established Roads, Railway Station, Bus Stand, High School, etc, and the impact of these buildings, and centres on the land in dispute. While determining the quantum of compensation, it would be necessary to examine the impact of judgment Exh. R-16, Sale-Deed Exh. P-2 and other documents, if any, later on, produced by the parties in addition to the evidence already available to the file. The learned Referee Court shall decide the case afresh after granting the opportunity to the parties to produce any further evidence, if they wish so and hearing the arguments on legal as well as factual premises. It is believed that the case shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties. No order as to costs.