Land measuring 15 kanals and 5 marlas in KhasrE No. 4555/569, situated in the Revenue Estate of Kalla Kahar, District Chakwal belonging to the appellant was acquired for the construction of the Lahore Islamabad Motorway by the National High Way Authority. The Land Acquisition Collector (L.A.C.) vide award dated 28.2.1993 fixed the compensation at the following rate:---{{TABLE}} Kind of Land Price of Kanal Maira Rs. 4,000/- laa ra n i/Awa I Rs. 4,500/- Hail Rs. 7,000/- Bunjar Kham Rs. 800/- Bunja Qadeem Rs. 1,000/- Ghair Mumkin Parr Rs. 500/- Ghair Mumkin Ban & Kassi Rs. 700/- Ghair Mumkin Rs. 800/- Ghair Mumkin Kundar Rs. 800/- Ghair Mumkin Rasta. Rs. 800/-
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that according to the documentary evidence produced by the appellant the market value is more than the one determined by the learned Referee Court. The learned Referee Court has suffered from non-reading of the evidence. The learned Referee Court has suffered from non-reading of the evidence. The learned Referee Court has not taken into consideration the future potential of the land in question and has also not taken into consideration the location of the land which is in the proximity of the tourist's resort of Kallar Kahar and boasts of all the amenities. It is lastly argued that in view of the sky rocketing inflation, the appellant is also entitled to the mark-up on the total sum not so far paid to him. Reliance is placed on "2010 SCM R 82" titled WAPDA through S.E. Acquiring Cell CRBC Project. WAPDA, D.I. Khan and another v. Syed All and others "PLD 2010 Supreme Court 719" titled Land Acquisition Collector v. Mst. Iqbal Begum and others "2007 SCM R 1054" titled Chairman, WAPDA and others v. Sarfraz Khan and another.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel Mr. Abid Hussain Ranjha appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 supports the award made by the learned Referee Court and opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that the rate of compensation fixed by the learned Referee Court is already exorbitant and the appellant is not entitled to the enhancement of the compensation.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
5. The appellant has appended the copies of various mutations sanctioned on various dates as Ex.A-1 to Exh.A-9. Under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, one of the matters to be considered for determining the amount of compensation is market value of the land acquired through Notification under Section 4 of the said Act Notification was issued on 2.3.1992. The market value has to be ascertained on the basis of average sale price of the land sold in the revenue estate during the previous one year. The mutations Ex.A-6 to A-9 after the issuance of the notification cannot be taken into consideration Exh.A-1 to A- 4 having been sanctioned more than one year prior to the notification cannot also be taken into consideration. The only sale that could be taken into consideration took place on 2.4.1991. In this respect Mutation No. 3219 Exh.A-5 was sanctioned. The respondents have been unable to produce any documentary evidence showing market value at less rate. The price paid in this transaction is Rs. 1,00,000/- per Kanal. The same is to be taken as the average price of the area. The style of the Land Acquisition Collector in fixing the amount of compensation was motivated with his desire to please the authorities to prove himself beneficial to them. His approach was invidious and oppressive towards the lamenting landowners. He has failed to take into consideration all the factors while determining the amount of compensation. The meagerness of the compensation has added insult to the injury sustained by the appellant. An affected landowner who is compulsorily made to quit his land and is forced to say farewell to the place, that cradled him and harbours the bones of his forefathers, has to be dealt with generously and delicately. The rate of compensation should have been slid up and then fixed towards a higher limit permissible under law. The term 'prevailing market value' at the time of publication of notification has to be interpreted and analyzed very carefully. It is the value that is to be considered while fixing the amount of compensation, the value, of which the price is a small component, the value on account of the tenacity of the owners with the land. The acquisition is a unilateral act of the acquisition authority and is usually unacceptable but is merely tolerated by the other party. This unwilling vendor has to be compensated by more than mere payment of price. The compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned Referee Court in their awards is meagre. Reliance is also placed on "PLD 2010 Supreme Court 878" titled Sadaqat Ali Khan through L.Rs. And others v.
Collector Land Acquisition "PLD 2010 Peshawar 25" titled Major (R.) Akbar Jan v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Sui Northern Gas Pipeline (Ltd.), Peshawar and 2 others. In order to determine the amount of compensation, the market value, the future potential, the proximity of the land and amenities attached thereto have to be considered. Since the land in question is situated in the Revenue Estate of Kalar Kahar which is already a well-developed tourist spot, therefore, it can safely be held that the land in question has a future potential. Keeping in view the market value, the future potential and the proximity of the land, the amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lac and ten thousand) per Kanal. As far the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, that he is also entitled to receive the mark-up, cannot be acceded to as he has already been granted received the compulsory acquisition charges. This appeal is accepted. .