' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---By judgment, dated 21-2-2005, learned Senior Civil Judge/Judge Land Acquisition, Mardan, has enhanced the quantum of compensation on Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which judgment has been assailed by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Mardan and others, through instant appeal under section 54 of the Act.
2. Vide Award No,3/4, dated 21-3-2002, a piece of land, including the land of Muhammad Ayub Khan and others, respondents 1 to 8, bearing Khasra Nos. 2687, 2690 and 2808, measuring 3 kanals, 14 marlas, was acquired by the appellants at different rates, for the remodeling and widening of `khunder' drain, Mardan. The land owners objected to the compensation amount fixed for their acquired land and filed an objection petition under section 18 of the Act, for the enhancement of the compensation. The objection petition, having been contested, was accepted by the Land Acquisition Judge, Mardan, by enhancing rate of their acquired land and it was also ordered that the appellants will also pay rate as determined in the judgment for the landed property, represented by Khasra No,2486, owned by the answering respondents.
3. The validity and correctness of the impugned judgment is assailed by Mr. Lal Jan Khan Khattak, Advocate, mainly on the ground that while revising and enhancing the compensation, learned Referee Court has not kept in view the criteria and principle governing the determination of compensation to be paid for the acquired land. The compensation of the acquired land determined by the Land AcquisitionCollector was in line with the legal provision of the Act and also with the prevailing factor necessary for taking into, account for determining actual market value of the acquired land. It was also contended that the trial Court proceeded on wrong premises to hold that the area falling in Khasra No,2486 was not also taken by the appellants, nor there is any evidence showing that the landowners have been deprived of this piece of land.
4. As against that, Salar Muhammad Ayub, Advocate for the contesting respondents, refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned judgment and decree wholeheartedly, maintaining that the Referee Court has proceeded strictly on the basis of the evidence and the judgment and decree is in conformity with the principle governing the fixation of compensation.
5. The respective contentions have been considered in the light of evidence on the record.
6. It needs no reiteration that most important aspect of the qua land compulsorily required, is mandatory returns proposed to be given to the owners, is the compensation and not the market value. Very section 23 of the Act provides for various matters to be brought into consideration while determining compensation. Market value is only one of such matters, to be considered by Collector or Courts. Compensation is a very wide term indicating that the landowner, for various reasons, is to be compensated and not merely paid the price of land, which is just an interaction of supply and demand fixed between a willing buyer and A willing seller. Mere classification or nature of land may 'be taken a relevant consideration, but is not an absolute one. Location, neighborhood, potentiality or other benefits, all these factors cannot be ignored. The place and situation of the acquired land should be arch consideration to be given thoughtful attention for the assessment of compensation of the land. Province of Sindh through Collector of District Dadu and others v.
Ramzan and others (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 512) and Afzal Shah, v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (PLD 1990 Peshawar 83).
7. Having considered the matter from all angles, I am of the view that the compensation assessed and determined by learned trial Court is fair and reasonable. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment, I find that learned Referee Court adverted to every aspect of the case and advanced valid and cogent reasons in support of her finding. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to draw my attention to any portion of evidence, which was allegedly overlooked or was misread by the Court below. It may be pertinently mentioned here that Award No,63 (Exh. OW.2/1) was announced on 25-8-1998, regarding lands adjacent tothe acquired land and higher compensation was awarded to the owners, but in the case of respondents, a novel criteria was adopted and respondents were treated differently. Adverting to the second objection of learned counsel for the appellants, regarding acquisition of Khasra No,2486, measuring 1 kanal, 14 marlas, or otherwise, Hamesh Gul (OW.1) Patwari Halqa, placed on record `Aks Shajra' (OW.2/1), and deposed that said Khasra number was taken over by appellants but was not included in the Award.
The testimony of the witness had gone unchallenged.
8. In view of the above, the Court was, thus, justified to rely upon the relevant factors and to fix the compensation accordingly, which is consistent with the criteria and the yardsticks laid down by the superior Courts. I, therefore, find no valid justification to take a different view of the matter than has been taken by the Reference Court. The appeal is without merit, which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.