' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.-The appellants are aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 20-11-2000 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan as Referee Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the said Court while reversing the findings of Land Acquisition Collector determining the market value of the disputed property at the rate -of Rs, 12,864 per acre, enhanced the price to Rs,24,518 per acre.
2. The facts briefly stated are that land measuring 4 Acres, 3 Kanals and 7 Marlas situated in Chak No,l/P Tehsil Khanpur owned by the respondents was acquired for the purpose of construction of drainage BD-2 vide Notification No,LAC/RYK/7318 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, issued on 26-2-1986 and published on 20-3-1986. The Land Acquisition Collector made Award on 4-1-1988 whereby respondents were allowed compensation under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act determining the price of the property at the rate of Rs, 12,864 per acre. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation allowed by the Collector, respondents prayed for a reference in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and on receipt of the Reference the learned Senior Civil Judge after framing the following issues put the parties at trial: ISSUES:
(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Collector was insufficient and inadequate, if so, what should be the appropriate compensation? OPA
(2) Relief.
3. In support of their plea Manzoor Ahmad one of the respondents appeared as AW-1 and they closed their evidence by tendering documents Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-19, whereas, on behalf of the appellants Muhammad Shall, Naib-Tehsildar appeared as R.W.-l and appellants evidence was closed after producing documents Exh.R-1 to Exh.R-5, On the conclusion of trial, the learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment dated 20-11-2000 answered Issue No, 1 in favour of the respondents and held them entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs,24,518 per acre along with other incidental charge. The appellants have challenged the above-mentioned findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge through this appeal.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant thatw the respondents failed to produce any cogent/ convincing evidence to prove the average market price of similar kind of land similarly located on the basis of price prevalent during the period of twelve months preceding the date of publication of Notification Under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act per requirement of Rule 10(l)
(iii)(c) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, and that whatever relates to the period of twelve months preceding the date of publication of the Notification i.e, 20-3-1986 nor commensurate with rate of similar kind of land in the adjacent villages i.e, Amirpur and Tetleywala. The contention of learned counsel .For the appellant is that as admittedly no agricultural land was sold in the disputed village i.e, Chak No,l/P during the preceding twelve months of publication of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the only evidence available was Exh. A/10 giving description of average sale price of agricultural land in the adjacent vilfhgks i.e, Mauza Amirpur at the rate of Rs,24,512 pre acre, in village Moni Thai at the rate of Rs, 12,864 and Mouza Tetleywala at the rate of Rs,28,640 and if the final average sale price is worked out after consolidating the above average sale price of the three villages, it comes to Rs,22,801 per acre but the learned Senior Civil Judge has worked out the same as Rs,24,518 without giving any basis for his findings.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has forcefully supported the findings of the learned trial Court by contending that learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly determined the compensation as the same was wrongly determined by the Land Acquisition Collector at the instance of the appellant. To support his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the case "Federation of Pakistan V. Shaukat Ali" (PLD 1999 SC 1026-i).
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the entire evidence and also appraised the evidence available before us.
7. It is an established principle of law that in land acquisition cases it is the objector who has to disprove the determination by the Land Acquisition Collector, by producing convincing and legal evidence. As mentioned above, per rule lQ(l)(iii)(.c) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 the relevant period while determining the market value would be the one prevalent during one year preceding to the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and in this case the said Notification was issued on 20-3-1986. Admittedly the disputed land is agricultural land and per Exh.A/10 no agricultural land was' sold in the disputed village during crucial period i.e, 19-3-1985 to 20-3-1986 and in th$ absence of any such evidence, the only evidence which-could be considered would be the price of similar kind of land similarly located in the adjacent villages and while enhancing the price from Rs, 12,864 per acre to Rs,24,518 per acre the learned Senior Civil Judge also followed the said formula but fell into error by placing reliance only on the average sale price of one adjacent village only i.e, village Amirpur but ignored the average sale price of similar kind of land in two remaining adjacent villages i.e, Moni Thai and Tetley wala, hence, there is a considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that findings of learned Senior Civil Judge are not based on proper appraisal of evidence. We therefore, feel that it would be in the safer administration of justice if the average sale price is worked out by consolidating the average sale price of land in all the three adjacent villages as determined in Exh.A/1 and after working out the same, it comes to Rs,22,801 per acre and this is so fixed in the light of facts, circumstances and the evidence available on record.
8. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed, the findings of. Learned Senior Civil Judge on Issue No,l are modified and the respondents are held entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs,22,801 per acre along with compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15% in terms of section 23, subsection (2) and 8% interest from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of payment of enhanced amount, as required by section 28 of the said Act.