1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- The impugned judgment dated 23-4-2002 passed by the learned referee Court Gilgit is the result of the reference under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) made by the appellant, No.4 (the Collector under the Act). The appellants have assailed the same before this Court through the instant 1st appeal.
2. ' The facts of the case are as such, that the appellants acquired one Kanal land bearing Khasra No.7941/2109 owned by the respondent situated in Gilgit City and Award No.SO(R)-1/1942-44/94 dated 22-11-1994 was made by the Collector under the Act (hereinafter called Collector), whereby the Collector fixed Rs.172,570 per Kanal of the acquired land and offered the payment. The respondent received the compensation amount fixed by the Collector, but under protest and submitted application under section 18 of the Act before the Collector and the Collector referred the same to the referee Court/District Judge Gilgit. The Referee Court tried the application providing full opportunity to the parties to meet the issues framed by the Court.
3. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that the appellants neither submitted any documentary evidence along with the written, replication submitted by them nor produced any witness in rebuttal or in proof of issues framed, they just relied on the statement of one Naib Tehsildar.
4. Recorded in the Court, contrary to the fact, the respondent submitted documentary evidence Exhs.P.1 to P.10 and also adduced oral evidence in proof of issues. The learned referee Judge passed the impugned judgment after completion of the trial whereby he although discarded the claim of Rs.5,00,000 made by the respondent through the application under section 18 of the Act, but granted Rs.300,000 per Kanal of the acquired land along with 8% interest. The appellants impugned the judgment before this Court through the instant appeal but the respondent/petitioner neither filed any appeal nor cross objections made before this Court, which amounts acceptance of the rates fixed by the referee Court by him.
5. ' We heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and also have gone through the record of the case. The learned A.A.-G. Urged (a) that the land acquired was agricultural in its nature and the Referee Court has wrongly declared the same to be situated in commercial area and (b) that the Collector had paid the prevailing rates after due inquiry as provided by relevant law as such he enhanced rates made by the Referee Court is contrary to the facts and the record and beyond his jurisdiction, he in support of his version cited the following case laws: (1) PLD 1986 SC page 158(2) 1998 MLD page 1592 Lah (3)
6. 1984 CLC page 459 (4) AIR 1974 SC page 2333.
7. ' In response, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the land owned by the respondent acquired was and is located in commercial area in Gilgit city and the rates of acquired land fixed by the Collector were less than the rates prevailing at that time, this fact has been fully proved by the respondent before the Referee Court through documentary as well as oral evidence, while the appellants have failed to bring into record any documentary evidence or to produce any oral evidence before the Court hence, the Collector has fixed the rates of the acquired land arbitrarily and without resorting to the provisions of the Act, he referred the case-law in support of his contention as under: (1) PLD 1991 Lah. Page 337 (2) PLD 1996 Pesh page 22 (3) PLD 1996 Lah. 171
(3) PLD 1997 Pesh.19.
8. ' In our opinion, the points, in the instant case require judicial determination are that (a) whether the acquired land situates in commercial area or situates in agricultural locality and (b) if the collector has acted in accordance with the Act and has inquired properly while fixing the market value of the land and (c) the learned referee Court has ignored the investigation made by the collector and has arbitrarily enhanced the rates. We before going to determine the above points would like to visit the Act generally to understand the procedure and the method which has been provided to the Collector to follow the same when he sits to acquire a land for Government purposes or otherwise under the Act.
9. Perusal of the Act transpires that, whenever, a Collector becomes functional to proceed for acquisition of land under the Act, he publishes preliminary notification under section 4 of the Act and proceeds further in accordance with the provisions of the Act, then he issues notice to the interested persons to inform them about the intention of the Government to take possession of the land and to provide a chance to submit their claims of compensation by attending personally or by agent before the Collector at any time fixed in the notice andandn the day so fixed or on the adjourned date, the Collector makes enquiry as provided under section 11 of the Act and makes the award which becomes final under section 12. Section 15 of the Act directs the Collector to be guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and 24 of the Act in determining of the amount of compensation of the acquired land and sections 23 and 24 of the Act have exhaustively provided the matters to be considered and neglected in determination of compensation.
10. 'In the instant case as has been noted by us in preceding para.3 of this judgment that the respondents have hopelessly failed to bring the record before the learned referee Court which might have transpired that the Collector had acted upon the above mentioned procedure and on the method prescribed by the Act and after being guided by the relevant provisions, he had made the award and fixed the compensation rates. Rather the representative of the respondents had admitted some facts which go in favour of the petitioners. While the respondent has placed documents Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.10 and also produced oral evidence before the Court, hence the petitioner/respondent has brought sufficient substance to prove that the land situates in commercial area and the rate fixed by the Collector was less than that of the market value of the land acquired and the learned referee Court has rightly appreciated the same in the circumstances of the case.
11. ' We have gone through the case-law referred by the learned Assistant Advocate-General out of which only PLD 1986 SC page .158 is relevant in case in hand, whereby the august Supreme Court has prescribed the factors to be taken into consideration, while determining the value of the land to be acquired, the valuable observation and the salutary principle laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan is reproduced as under:--- "The land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time at which its value has to be determined, but also by a reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in future, and the market value is the potential value of the property at the time of acquisition which would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller, when both are actuated by business principles prevalent in the locality at that time."
12. "This salutary principle is often ignored by the functionaries of the Government while assessing the amount of compensation to be awarded to the persons whose land is compulsorily acquired. The principle that the use to which the land is capable of being put, to the advantage of the owner, is a factor which ought to be considered by the assessing authority, has been enunciated in a number of cases."
13. "While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the past sales should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determining".
14. ' We have been guided by the above observation and findings of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that the future potentialities of the acquired land is also a consideration but the Collectors often ignore this principle while determining the rates of the acquired land, particularity in Gilgit, Baltistan, the Collectors do not bother to look into the provisions of the Act and also do not extend value to 'the guidelines framed by the higher judiciary in Pakistan. The behavior' and the disinterest of the petitioners to bring any record into the file of the case D show that the collector has not complied the provision of the. Act, while the respondent stands in better legal position to prove his contention as such we are of the view that the learned Referee Court has not erred in the law by enhancing the rates fixed by the Collector, so we are prompted to decline the revision petition.
15. ' Consequent upon the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment/decree is maintained. No orders as to cost.