' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---The judgment, dated 17-10-1995 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din has been assailed in this appeal whereby the application of the appellants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for enhancement of the compensation was dismissed.
The necessary relevant facts are noted hereunder.
2. Land measuring 324 Kanals, 3 Marlas was required by the Government of the Punjab for an area development scheme at Mandi Bahauddin. Notification under section 4(1) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 was published in the Gazette on 12-6-1985 and ultimately the award was announced on 15-6-1988. The learned Land Acquisition Collector, on the basis of the average sale price, preceding one year before the date of publication of the aforesaid notification, assessed compensation at the rate of Rs.181.38 per Marla, 15% compulsory acquisition charges were also allowed.
3. The appellants claimed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was contested by the learned land Acquisition Collector and was dismissed vide judgment, dated 17-10-1995. The oral evidence was straightaway discarded by the learned Referee Court. As far as the documentary evidence is concerned, a number of mutations were produced by the appellants in support of their case for enhancement of compensation between Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 per Marla.
The learned Referee Court observed that these were sanctioned between August, 1986 and December, 1988 while the proceedings of acquisition were completed in August, 1985 and, therefore, these were not relevant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants not only relied on the oral evidence as to the location of the land in dispute clearly indicating its potential but also place reliance on Exh.A2 Mutation No.12234 attested on 30-12-1985, Exh.A5 Mutation No.12699 attested on 10-8-1986 and Exh.A. 15 Mutation No.13319 attested on 11-5-1988 to contend that the transactions involved in the said cases covered the relevant period which were ignored by the learned Referee Court. On the record of this appeal, the appellants have placed a report of the Local Commissioner to contend that on the basis of evidence recorded before the Local Commissioner, he was of the opinion that the land situated on the front of the road was valued at Rs.16,000.00/17,000.00 per Marla while the land on the back was of the value of Rs.700.00 to Rs.800.00 per Marla.
5. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Advocate-General has contended that the only evidence which could be taken into consideration by the learned Referee Court was the average sale price preceding one year before the date of publication of the notification under section 4 (Exh.R8) according to which the average sale price was Rs.181.38 per Marla and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment of the learned Referee Court.
6. We have examined the evidence produced in the case. Even some material depositions of the P.
Ws. Were not taken into consideration by the learned Referee Court. According to A.W.1, the land in dispute was situated on the metalled Head Rasul Dinga Road, there was a petrol pump in the vicinity and that the land in dispute although was outside the municipal limits, yet it had assumed the position of a Mohallah of Mandi Bahauddin. He further stated that in front of the land in dispute was the WAPDA Colony and a Middle School, Ghulam Rasul, who appeared as A.W.2 is the Lumbardar of the Revenue estate. According to him towards East of the land in dispute was a petrol pump and a Market with metalled road. There was WAPDA Colony and a School in the vicinity as well. Haji Ahmed, P.W.3, one of the appellants, appeared as A.W.3. He stated that on two sides of the disputed land was a metalled road, it was, adjacent to Mandi Bahauddin, towards the East was the WAPDA Colony and in the vicinity of the land in dispute were the offices of Telephone, Electricity and some factories. All the three witnesses claimed that the per Marla cost was between Rs.22,000/25,000. The appellants had also produced on record copies of the mutations Exh.A.2 to A.18 Except Exhs.A.2, A.5 and A.15, the other mutations are not relevant because the transactions involved therein related to the period after publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, Exh.A.2, the mutation attested on 30-12-1985, was, based on registered sale-deed, dated 10-4-1985 which shows that 15 Marlas land was sold for Rs.1,95,000 Exh.A.5 was attested on 11-8-1986 but again the transaction was based on registered sale-deed, dated 12-8-1984. According to this transaction an area measuring 26 Marlas was sold for a consideration of Rs.2,60,000, Exh.A.15 was attested on 11-5-1988, and the basis thereof was the decree of a learned Civil Court, dated 8-6-1983. According to this mutation 5 Marlas of land was sold for Rs.48,000. In these three transactions, the total area involved was 46 Marlas with a sale consideration of Rs.5,03,000. The average of these three sale transactions comes to little less than Rs.11,000 per Marla. However, there is a no evidence on the record as to the location and potential of the land involved in these three transactions. We have also examined Exh.D.8, the average sale price for the period between 12-6-1984 to 11-6-1985. It involved, four transactions. One was through registered sale-deed, dated 12-1-1985 while the other three were oral transactions attested on 17-4-1985, 26-3-1985 and 26-3-1985. In these transactions the area involved was 52 Kanals and 2 Marlas and the consideration was Rs.1,89,000. The area sold in the transactions involved in Exhs.2, A.5 and A.15 and the area involved in the four transactions noted in Exh.D.8 comes to 1088 Marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,92,000. The per Marla rate according to these seven transactions comes to approximately Rs.331.00. In any case we are of the view that the average sale price of Rs.181.38 per Marla was, on the face of it, inadequate. We, however, find that satisfactory evidence is not on the record to render a just decision of the case while valuable rights of the appellants are involved. We may observe that average sale price is not determinative of the quantum of compensation because the matters required to be considered in determining compensation specified in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, have to be kept in view particularly, the explanation to subsection (1) under clause (a) i.e. The potential value of the land to be acquired if put to a different use. Undoubtedly, from the evidence produced on the record we are of the view that the land had urban potential. This view is strengthened by the fact that it was selected for a housing scheme by the Government of the Punjab. The location of the land involved in Exhs.A.2, A.5 and A.15 was, therefore, material and important. This could be conveniently found by getting the Aks Shajra of the acquired land and the Aks Shajra of the land involved in the aforesaid three transactions prepared through the revenue agency. The mutations noted in Exh.D.8 were also not produced nor the location of the land involved in the said mutations was brought on the record. We may like to observe that the report of the Local Commissioner being relied upon was submitted in the case titled Shan Muhammad and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector and not in this case. Perusal of the record shows that the said case and the present case were heard together by the learned trial Court. The case titled Shan Muhammad and others v. The Collector was, however, withdrawn vide order, dated 27-1-1993.
8. For the above reasons we are of the view that the learned Referee Court has not determined compensation payable to the appellants in accordance with law and in the absence of satisfactory evidence on the record were also unable to determine it in a just and fair manner.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned Referee Court is set aside and the case is remanded for a fresh decision according to law. The learned Referee Court shall get prepared through the Revenue agency, Aks Shajra of the acquired land as well as the land involved in the transactions in Exhs.A.2, A.5 and A.15 and Exh.D.8. The parties will be allowed opportunity to lead further evidence. No order as to costs.