IJAZ AHMAD, J. --- R.F.As. Nos. 55 and 91 of 2002 impugn the same award by the learned Referee Court. The appellant in R.F.A. No. 55 prays for enhancement of compensation whereas the appellant in R.F.A. No. 91 of 2002 prays for its reduction. Both the appeals will be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21.12.1988. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector
(LAC) on 8.8.1991. The amount of the cultivated land and Rs. 1500/-per Kanal for uncultivated land.
The compensation for the trees was worked out at Rs. 36310/- but the same was not awarded as it was not approved by the Board of Revenue, Punjab. On application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) made reference to the Senior Civil Judge, Chakwal. The learned Referee Court vide the award dated 21.1.2002 fixed the compensation for the Ghair Mumkin Khundar land at Rs.
6382/- per Kanal and of the "Maira" land at Rs. 9060/- per Kanal. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have preferred the above-said appeals.
3. The appellants in R.F.A. No. 55 of 2002 argue that as per the table Ex.P.A, the average sale price of the land is Rs. 16462/- for the "Maira" land and Rs. 36470/- for "Chair Mumkin" land; that in order to ascertain the amount of compensation, besides the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the damage sustained by the owners because of taking possession of the standing trees and by severance of their remaining land from the acquired chunk of the land and the injuries sustained on account of compelled change of residences have to be taken into consideration; that even if the document Exh.D-1 referred by the Province of the Punjab and the Acquisition authorities is taken into consideration, that also fixes the price of the "Maira land" at Rs. 11851.80/- per Kanal and of "Banjar Qadeem" at. Rs. 24236/- per Kanal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for Province of . Punjab, the respondent in this appeal and the appellant in R.F.A. No. 91 contends that all the transactions mentioned in Exh.P-1 and A-1 relate to the site in the proximity of Kalar Kahar town and tourism centre. The acquired land is at a distance of 3 to 4 Kilometers from the town; therefore, the transactions mentioned in both these documents cannot be .Taken into consideration while determining the price of the acquired land.
4A. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
5. There is no doubt that the land in question was compulsorily acquired by the Province of Punjab for the construction of a Dam. Exh.A-1 reveals the average price of the "Maira" land in the revenue Estate of Kalar Kahar at Rs. 16462/- per Kanal and that of the "Ghair Mumkin" land at Rs. 36470/- per Kanal. Even the document produced by the Province of Punjab as Exh.D-1 discloses the average price of the Maira land at Rs. 11851.80/- and that of the "Banjar Qadeem" at Rs. 24236/-. The Province of the Punjab, respondent in R.F.A. No. 55 cannot escape the contents of the document Exh.D-1 produced by himself. The amount of the compensation for the damage caused to the trees was worked out under Section 23(2) by the Acquisition authority at Rs.
36310/- in total to be paid to all the landowners. It could not be paid because the same was not approved by Board of Revenue, Punjab. No document is available on the record to justify the refusal to approve the compensation for the damage caused to the trees. This amount is payable and has to be distributed among all the landowners in question. The referee Court has ignored the transactions made during one year prior to issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act enlisted in the documents Exh.A1 and Exh.D-1. The learned Court has wrongly observed that the transactions mentioned therein were regarding the sale of the land for residential purpose whereas the land in question has been acquired for construction of the Dam.
The nature of prospective use of the land sold in the Revenue Estate is not a matter to be considered while determining the compensation. The use of the land at the time of acquisition in fact, is one of the matters to be considered for this purpose. The findings of the learned referee Court wherein the compensation is not awarded keeping in view the market value of the land is not sustainable. No doubt as per the statement made by AW-2, after the acquisition of the land and after the construction of the Dam no access is left for the remaining land of the appellants. This has diminished the utility of their remaining land. The appellants/land owners are entitled to the compensation for diminished utility of their land. Their land has been compulsorily acquired. The differential in the price case-of compulsory acquisition and in case of voluntarily sale is also to be taken into consideration.'
6. For what has been discussed above, the market value of the land in case of "Maira" is fixed at Rs. 11851.80/- and that of "Banjar Qadeem" at Rs. 30353/-as per Exh.D-1 produced by the respondent Government of Punjab. But market value is only one of the matters to be considered. In view of the blocking of the access to the remaining land of the appellants and in view to meet with the differential, in the price of land in case of forced alienation and voluntarily alienation, the price of the "Maira" land In the instant appeal is fixed at Rs. 13,000/- per kanal and that of "Banjar Qadeem" is fixed at Rs. 28,000/- per kanal. The compensation of the trees calculated at Rs. 36310/- will be paid as per the shares in addition to the above. R.F.A. No. 55 of 2002 is accepted. R.F.A. No. 91 of 2002 is dismissed.