' MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.-This order shall dispose of the present appeal (R. F. A. No, 3 of 1973) as well as R. F. A. No, 1 of 1973, R. F. A. No, 2 of 1973, R. F. A. No, 6 of 1973 and R. F. A. No 18 of 1973.
2. These appeals relate to certain land acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Multan, hereinafter referred to as, the Collector, for the purpose of the construction of the superior Science College, Multan. It was a compact block of land which was owned by different persons in the revenue estate of Tarf Mubarik Doim, Tehsil and District Multan, Some of this land fell within the municipal limits of Multan City while the other was outside those limits. The Collector, therefore, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs, 200 per marla for the land within municipal limits and at the rate of Rs, 53.70 per marla for the land which was not within those limits on the basis of the five years' average sale price of the land of the land of the said two categories. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the Collector, three separate references, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were sought by the owners of the land. On the making of those references by the Collector, they were heard by the Administrative Civil Judge, Multan, in the shape of three cases, namely, Case No, 9 of 1970, Muhammad Usman Khan and 3 others v. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Multan and another, Case No, 10 of 1970, Mst. Surraya Sultan and another v.
Province of Punjab, and Case No, 11 of 1970, Moulvi Muhammad Faizan and 10 others v. Province of Punjab. The petitioners in those cases prayed for enhancement of the compensation. Their claim was, however, resisted by the respondents therein. The three cases were consolidated by the Administrative Civil Judge. Evidence in all the cases was recorded in Case No, 11 of 1970. The learned Administrative Civil Judge also inspected the spot before deciding the cases. In view of the evidence produced before him and his personal observations the learned Administrative Civil Judge allowed compensation at the rate of Rs, 250 per marla for the land within the municipal limits and Rs, 125 per marla for the land which was outside those limits. He also allowed "15% of enhanced compensation as compulsory acquisition charges" and "compound interest on the enhanced compensation at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of assumption of possession by the respondents, that is, 20-1-1970". Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, the Province of the Punjab preferred two appeals, namely, R. F. A. Nos, 1 and 3 of 1973 and the Collector filed a separate appeal that is, R. F. As. No, 2 of 1973. The petitioners in Cases Nos, 10 and 11 were also not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them by the learned Administrative Civil Judge and, therefore, they too filed appeals, namely, R. F. As. Nos, 6 and 18 of 1973. All these appeals are being decided by this single judgment.
3. While allowing compensation for the land within municipal limits at the rate of Rs, 200 per marla and for the land beyond those limits at the rate of Rs, 53.70 per marla, the Collector had relied on the statements of average sale price for five years. These statements are Exhs. R. I. And R. II, In Exh. R.
1. Only one sale of 1 kanal of land for Its. 4,000 is mentioned. This sale is recorded in a mutation which was attested on 15th February 1967. The other statement of average sale price, Exh. R. H, makes a mention of 44 sales recorded in mutations which were sanctioned during the period from 30th September 1966 to 31st August 1967. Notifications, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the disputed land were issued on 16th October 1967. As conceded by the learned counsel who represented the Province of the Punjab and the Collector, there is nothing on the record to show the location of the pieces of land mentioned in Exhs. R. I. And R. II vis-a-vis that of the land in dispute. What is known is only this much that they all fall in one and the same revenue estate.
4. As regards the learned Administrative Civil Judge, the evidence produced before him by the owners of the disputed land, hereinafter referred to as the respondents, in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation was in the form of the statements of five witnesses and some documents. Their witnesses were Muhammad Ali Gilani, Advocate (P. W. I), Niaz Ahmad Niazi (P. W.
2), Ghulam Muhammad Moharrir Registry (P. W. 3), Saif-ud-Din Patwari (P. W. 4) and Moulvi Muhammad Faizan, Advocate (P. W. 5). It was stated by Muhammad All Gilani, Advocate (P. W. 1), that on 5th January 1968, he purchased 7 marlas of land for Rs, 2,450. Exh. P. 1 is copy of relevant registered deed. He deposed that the disputed land was nearer to the Multan City as compared to the land purchased by him. According to him, the land in dispute was worth Rs, 600 per marla. Niaz Ahmad Niazi (P. W. 2) prepared site plan Exh. P. 2 relating to the land in question. It shows that Government College was close to the said land and there were bungalows towards northeast of it.
Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 3) stated that on an application, Exh. P. 3 made by Moulvi Muhammad Faizan respondent, he had checked the entries made in the statement Exh. P. 3 with the help of the relevant record and found it to be correct. The said statement makes a mention of as many as 16 sales made between the period from 11th October 1966 to 13th July 1967. Their average sale price comes to Rs, 333.94 per marla. Saif-ud-Din Patwari (P. W. 4) produced Aks Shajra Exh. P.
4. It indicates that some of the disputed land was within municipal limits and the other was outside those limits. Exh. P. 5 is copy of the award regarding land acquired for the construction of Comprehensive School by which compensation was allowed at the rate of Rs, 300 per marla.
Notification, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the land of the said School was issued on 14th March 1969, that is, about two years after the issue of the said notification in regard to the land in dispute.
5. In rebuttal of the respondent's evidence, the Province of Punjab and the Collector, hereinafter referred to as the appellants, examined two witnesses. They are Muhammad Ashraf Patwari (P. W.
1) and Muhammad Rafique Beg (R. W. 2). Muhammad Ashraf Patwari proved the statements of average sale price, Exhs. R. I. And R. IL When cross-examined he conceded that the building of the Government College and the Comprehensive School adjoined the disputed land that the land around the land in question was being purchased for residential purposes. Muhammad Rafique Beg is an Assistant Director of Education. He stated that the disputed land was at a distance of 1400 yards from a pacca road while the Degree College and the Comprehensive School had pacca roads. When cross-examined it was admitted by him that the area of Comprehensive School and the Degree College adjoined the land in dispute. It was further admitted by him that the Degree College was constructed ten years ago, that is, in 1961. He denied that there were houses on the northern side of the land in dispute.
6. As indicated above, the learned Administrative Civil Judge also inspected the spot and recorded a note to the following effect :- {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}}
7. While making the impugned order, the learned Administrative Civil Judge was conscious of the fact that in view of the transactions relied upon by the appellants the average sale price of the land came to a little more than Rs, 300 per marla but he did not award compensation accordingly for the reason that somewhat inflated sale prices were generally shown in the sale deeds with a view to defeating pre-emptive rights. He, therefore, awarded compensation for the land within municipal limits at the rate of Rs, 250 per marla and for the land outside those limits at the rate of Rs, 125 per marla.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the land in dispute was, in fact, a potential building site and, therefore, the Collector was not justified in awarding compensation on the basis of the average sale price of land for five years. As regards the Administrative Civil Judge, they maintained that the reasons given by him for not allowing compensation on the basis of the transactions relied upon by them were not valid and cogent.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in dispute was not a potential building area and, therefore, the learned Administrative Civil Judge was right in fixing its value on the basis of the average sale price of the land of the relevant estate. It was vehemently urged by him that the respondents were not entitled to anything more than what was awarded to them by the Collector.
10. It is abundantly clear from the oral and documentary evidence, led by the respondents that the disputed land is in the vicinity of the near and around the said land by the time of its acquisition. It is an built area of Multan City and certain buildings had already been constructed undisputed fact that a part of the land in question falls within the municipal limits. This means that the whole of the said land is close to the city inasmuch as it is a compact block and not scattered pieces o land.
There is no effective rebuttal of the respondents' evidence. It was also admitted by the two witnesses examined by the appellants that the Government Degree College and the Comprehensive School adjoin the land in dispute. Inspection note recorded by the Administrative Civil Judge too reveals that there are buildings around the land involved in the case in hand and it is in fact a potential building site. The learned Administrative Civil Judge was, therefore, justified in fixing its value by treating it as potential building area.
11. The fact that the Collector had awarded compensation for land within municipal limits at the rate of Rs, 200 per marla also suggests that he had treated the same as potential building site and not as an ordinary piece of land because if he had felt otherwise he would have bracketted the said land with the remaining land in dispute for which he had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs, 53.70 per marla. There is only one mutation mentioned in the statement of average sale price on the basis whereof he had fixed the value of the land within municipal limits. Exh. R. I. Indicates that there were some other mutations in regard to the aforesaid category of land but they were cancelled due to the land pertaining thereto being within municipal limits. According to section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1182, transfer of property within municipal limits can not be made except by means of a registered deed or delivery of possession. It was perhaps for this reason that the transactions mentioned in the statement Exh. P. 3, made by means of registered sale deeds, were not entered in Exh. R. 1 and those figuring in Exh. P. 3 were not entered in Exh. R.
1. It is, however clear that all the transactions mentioned in Exhs. R. I. And P. 3 are in respect of land within municipal limits which, as explained above appears to have been treated as potential building area by the Collector as well. As for that part of the land in dispute which does not fall within these limits, it can not be treated differently because the whole of the land in question constitutes a compact block. It will be unfair to value the land not falling within municipal limits on the basis of average sale price of Rs, 53.70 per marla as worked out in the statement Exh. R. II because the location of the pieces of land mentioned in Exh. R. II is not known. This much is, however, clear that they are not within municipal limits because they were not valued by the Collector accordingly. They are, obviously, away from the municipal limits although their respective distances from those limits are not known. Be that as it may, since the land in question is a compact piece of land, a part of it being within municipal limits and having been treated by the Collector as a land superior to the land in Exh. P. 1, the average worked out in Exh. R. 1, i,e, Rs, 53.76 per marla, will have to be discarded for the purposes of fixing the market value of the land in dispute.
12. According to statement Exh. P. 3 the sale price of the land within municipal limits comes to Rs, 333.94 but the learned Administrative Civil Judge assessed the value of the said land at Rs, 250 per marla for the reason that somewhat inflated prices are mentioned in the sale-deeds with a view to warding off the prospecutive pre-emptors. He was, by and large, right in saying so. We are also conscious of the fact that since he had himself inspected the spot he had the advantage of appreciating the potentiality of the land in question on the spot, for the purpose of determining its value. The Collector had fixed value of land within municipal limits at the rate of Rs, 200 per marla on the basis of single transaction reflected in Exh. R. I. We, therefore, agree with the learned trial Court that the said land was worth Rs, 250 per marla at the time of its acquisition.
13. We are, however, not inclined to make any distinction between that part of the land in dispute which falls within the municipal limits and the one which is outside those limits in the matter of awarding compensation because there is hardly any real distinction between two categories of the land. The mere drawing of a line on the spot or on the paper for the purpose of extending the municipal limits to some portion of the disputed land is, in our opinion, ' inconsequential because there is no evidence showing that any amenities or facilities had been made available to the area within municipal limits which were denied to the other area and thus the former was in an advantageous position as compared to the latter. We, therefore, hold that the respondents are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs, 250 per marla for the whole of their land irrespective the fact that it was included in the municipal limits or was outside those limits.
14. As a result of the above findings, the appeals filed by the Province of Punjab and the Collector, that is, R. F. A. Nos, 1, 2 and 3 of 1973 are dismissed with costs. The appeals preferred by the respondents namely, F. A. Nos, 6 and 18 are, however, accepted, with costs, by allowing compensation to the respondents therein at the rate of Rs, 250 per marla for the land involved in those appeals regardless of the fact that it is within muncipal limits or is outside those limits. The order of the learned Administrative Civil Judge in the last mentioned two appeals regarding award of compensation, enhanced compensation and interest are modified accordingly