SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---This is appeal against the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, dated 11-1-1999 whereby while deciding a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the compensation for the acquired land was, assessed at Rs.8,796.92 per Marla and decree for compulsory acquisition charges at 15% and interest at the rate of 8% was granted.
Cross-objections (R.F.A. No.86 of 2005) qua the same have also been filed by the respondents/landowners, which shall stand disposed of through this judgment.
2. The essential factual aspects are not in dispute. Land measuring 7 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in Revenue Estate Raiwind, Tehsil Lahore owned by the respondents who are mother and son was acquired for construction of dual carriage way from Thokar Niaz Baig to Raiwind vide notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 17-1-1996. The award dated 3-3-1998 was announced by the Collector whereby the compensation was assessed at Rs.4,000 per Marla. Being dissatisfied with the same reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed by the respondents, claiming the compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000 per Marla. Their claim was contested. There were two important issues, which were framed by the trial Court:-- "(1) Whether the compensation for the acquisition of laud owned by the petitioners is in adequate, insufficient and factually incorrect'? OPA
(2) If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative what should be compensation, how much land of. The petitioners was acquired/taken over by the respondents'? OPA"
The respondents produced evidence in support of their claim and examined Muhammad Islam A.W.1; Tariq Mahboob A.W.2, Muhammad Siddique A.W.4 and Muhammad Ali appeared himself as A.W.3 whereas Zaheer-ul-Hassnain Naqvi, Naib Tehsildar, Highways appeared as R.W.1.
3. There is no dispute about the situation of the land, which was then existing on Lahore Raiwind Road and was acquired for extension/widening of the said road. It was indeed utilized for that purpose. Because of its location its potential use is not beyond comprehension. In his statement Muhammad Islam A. W.1 had stated that the road passed through the land of the respondents which was of commercial nature. Tariq Mahboob A.W.2, a property dealer of the area stated that the land was of commercial nature whose price presently was Rs.1,00,000 per Marla. Muhammad Siddique A.W.4, a shopkeeper stated that the land was situated on the main road where there were markets and factories and prices of land were Rs.50,000 per Marla. Muhammad Ali who appeared himself as A.W.3 claimed the rate of the land at Rs.50,000/Rs.60,000 per Marla. It was staled by him that there had been colonies and plazas built in that vicinity. Zaheer-ul-Hassanain Naqvi R.W.I stated that the price of the land in the vicinity was Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 per Marla which was due to the dual carriage way and extension of the road. It was admitted by him that there were shops built in the vicinity and that presently the rate of the property was Rs.20,000 per Marla. It may be noted that the evidence in the case was recorded in the month of October and November, 1998.
4. The principles and guidelines for the assessment and determination of compensation and value of the acquired land have elaborately been laid down in the precedents. In Province of Punjab through Collector, Attock v. Engineer Jamil Ahmad Malik and others 2000 SCM R 870 at least fourteen factors were stated to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation, keeping in view the provisions of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Some of the salient aspects worth-mentioning are: (a) to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent lands made shortly before and after the notification; (b) An area may be Banjar Qadeem or Barrani but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood. Potentiality or other benefits; (e) consideration should be had to all the advantages present or future which the land possesses in the hands of the owners; (d) in determining the quantum of fair compensation the main criterion is the price which a buyer would A pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction. While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller; (e) 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 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". It may be observed that adoption of such criteria can furnish a just basis for fair determination of compensation. The formula of past A sales in the area and average price cannot be made as the sole basis. In the present case from the preponderance of evidence it was established that the land was of much higher value as it had characteristics of urbanization due to its location and commercial utility, Even R.W.1 Zaheer-ul-Hassanain Naqvi had to admit that the value of the land in the vicinity was Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 per Marla. Besides other evidence Exh.A.16 was a memorandum address by the Collector, Lahore to the Commissioner, Lahore Division, dated 15-8-1998, which concerned with the acquisition of land about the same period for the same purpose and situated in the same village. The perusal whereof shows that the Collector, Lahore had assessed the sale price of the land at Rs.10,000 per Marla. Although the market price reported to him was Rs.25,000 per Marla. It gives a fair idea of the present as also of the future use and potential value of the land in the vicinity. The landowners, therefore, could not be deprived of the fair compensation of their land, which was being acquired from them compulsorily. All these aspects were not kept in view by the learned Reference Court. We have thus, come to the conclusion that neither the compensation claimed (Rs.50,000 per Marla) by the landowners was reasonable nor the value (Rs.4,000 per Marla) as given in the award, even the determination made by the Reference Court (Rs.8,796.92 per Marla) was even not just and fair. We find that the assessm ent of price made by the Collector, Lahore as indicated in Exh.A.16 i.e. Rs.10,000 per Marla should have been allowed to the landowners which was consistent even with the deposition of Zaheer-ul-Hassanain Naqvi R. W.1. The judgment and decree of the Reference Court is modified by substituting the quantum of compensation to this extent.
As a result the appeal filed by the Executive Engineer; Highway Department and others is dismissed and the cross-objection are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.