' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.-Above tided five civil appeals of identical nature arise out of the common judgment dated 7.5.2008, in RFAs Nos. 61 and 76 to 79 of 1992, whereby these appeals, preferred by the present appellant were partly allowed to-the extent that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Attock in five connected reference petitions No. 26/11 to 30/11 of 1991, at the rate of Rs. 34,500/- per kanal with other consequential legal benefits under (he Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act of 1894") was modified/reduced to Rs.
30,000/- per kanal.
2. Briefly stated, relevant facts leading to this litigation are that Vide notification dated 10.3.1987, issued under section 4 of the Act of 1894, an area of 937-kanals, 18-marlas, situated at Village Hassan Abdal, Tehsil and District Attock, wherefrom some pieces of land were owned by the private respondents, was acquired through Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Attock, in favour of the appellant Askari Cement Limited (formerly known as Associated Cement Limited). Originally the appellant had requested to acquire an area of 1010-kanals and 17-mar las, including the acquired area, for meeting their requirement of Argillacious Clay for their existing as well as additional plants. Such request of the appellant was, however approved by the Director of Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore to the extent of 952-kanals, 10-marlas, but during the intervening period as they had already purchased some land, therefore, per final notification under section 4, only the aforementioned area of 937-kanals, 18-marlas was acquired. The notification under section 17(4) and (6) of the Act of 1894, after conducting due inquiry and investigation in all respects, was accordingly published in the extraordinary Punjab Gazette on 24.12.1989, while the physical possession of acquired land, including the land of the private respondents was obtained from them on 24.2.1990. As regards acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector (I&D), Punjab, made his Award No. 10 of 1990, on 1G.9.1990, wherein, as against the claim of private respondents for grant of compensation at Rs. 60,000/- to 70,000/, per kanal, the award was passed at the rate of Rs. 13,776.20 per kanal, plus 25 percent, compulsory acquisition charges, and Rs. 100/- per acre administration charges.
3. Most of the affectees of this award/land owners accepted the terms of the award-and received their respective compensation without any objection. However, private respondents in these five appeals/tiieir pr^decessor-in-interests, who owned different separate pieces of the acquired land, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation at Rs. 13,776/20 per kanal, filed their respective objections/ reference applications before the Collector on 29.6.1991, claiming therein compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per kanal, together with other benefits permissible under the Act of 1894. These reference applications filed by the private respondents were sent to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Attock, for further proceedings in terms of section 18 of the Act of 1894, where the same were consolidated and, after full-fledged proceedings, a consolidated judgment was passed on 30.7.1992, in the following terms:- "Petitions succeed in the manner that the said petitioners were entitled with an additional payment of an amount of 15% on market values to compensation at the rate of Rs. 34,5001- per kanal. The petitioners were also entitled to 25% compulsory acquisition charges, which shall be recalculated in the light of this judgment, "
4. Aggrieved by this consolidated judgment, to the extent of enhancement' in the rate of compensation from Rs.
13776.20 per kanal to Rs. 34,500/- per kanal; five separate appeals were filed by the present appellant, as referred to above. Learned Division Bench in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and careful perusal of all the material placed on record by them, came to *the conclusion that the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 34,500/- per kanal awarded by the Court, of Senior Civil Judge, Attack was not in consonance'with the law laid down in this regard under the Act of 1894 qua relevant facts of these proceedings. It was, therefore, modified and reduced to Rs. 30,000/- per kanal.
5. Mr. Gulzarin Kiani, learned Sr. ASC for the appellant has vehemently argued before us that not bnly the judgment passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock, awarding compensation of acquired land to the private respondents at the rate of Rs. 34,500/- per kanal was result of ignoring the provisions of section 23 , of the Act-of 1894; misreading and non-reading of evidence, and based on conjectural reasons, but the learned Division Bench in the High Court also did not consider the case of the present appellant as regards the quantum of compensation of the acquired land in its true perspective. He further argued that , reference and reliance on some inadmissible and unauthentic notification and1^ registered sale-deeds produced before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Attock during the reference proceedings was of no material value/worth consideration for the reason that these sale-deeds were in respect of some small pieces of land at different locations, thus, did not furnish any substantial support to the claim of the private respondents for grant of higher market rate of compensation for their respective acquired pieces of land, while the worth of notification Ex-AW-1/1, relating to per maria rate of land in the area, allegedly issued by Sub-Registrar Attock, being not produced or proved in accordance with law was nothing but a waste piece of paper.
6. Conversely, the learned ASC for the private respondents strongly supported the impugned judgment of the High Court on the grounds that admittedly the land acquired for the benefit of the appellant is to be used by them for commercial purpose; it is adjoining to urban area and located within the limits of Town Committee, Hassan Abdal, with bright future potential; linked with nearby road network and railway track etc.; and also surrounded by several industrial units, which factors the acquiring authority as well as the Court of Senior Civil Judge were bound to take into account in line with the provisions of section 23 of the Act of 1894. He further contended that copies of registered sale-deeds produced in Court (Exs. A-l to A-6) during reference proceedings were substantial and authentic pieces of evidence, which have been validly considered and relied upon by the two Courts below In favour of private respondents, thus, as to the rate of compensation finally awarded by the High Court in the impugned judgment no exception can be taken.
7. We have carefully considered the above-noted submissions made by the learned Sr. ASC/ASC for the parties and perused the case record. It is evident from the contents of the award, the judgment dated 30.7.1992, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Attock and the impugned judgment dated 7.5.2008, passed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court that the only dispute between the appellant anil the private respondents is regarding the quantum of compensation, which was fixed at the rate of Rs. 13,776.20 per kanal under the award No. 10 of 1990, dated 10.9.1990; at Rs. 34,$00/- per kanal by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Attock, at the conclusion of proceedings under section 18 of the Act of 1894," Vide judgment dated 30.7.1992; and Rs. 30,000/-per kanal by the learned Division Bench of the High Court vide its impugned judgment dated 7.5.2008. The factors, which are required to be taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Collector for the purpose of determining the exact market value/compensation for acquired land, have been, elaborated and amplified under section 23 of the Act of 1894, while the factors which ought not to .Be included in determining such compensation have been highlighted under section 24 of the Act of 1894. By now, so much case-law is developed on the scope and application of these two statutory provisions that there is hardly any need for further discussion in this regard. Thus, a mere reference to the following cases well serve the purpose: --
(a) Province of the Punjab v, Hamid Elahi (PLD 1989 ' SC 119);
(b) Province of Punjab v. Akbar Ali (1990 SCM R 899);
(c) Market Committee v. Rawat Ali (1991 SCM R 572);
(d) Land Acquisition Collector, Abbott'abad v. Muhammad Iqbal (1992 SCM R 1245);
(e) Sadiq Niaz Rizvi v. Collector (PhD 1993 SC 80);
(f) Province of Sindh v. Ramzan (PLD 2004 SC 512);
(g) Malik Hadi Hussain v. Land Acquisition Collector (PLD 2008 SC 386);
(h) Province of Punjab v. Sh. Hasson Ali (PLD 2009 SC 16);
(i) Land Acquisition Collector v. Mst. Iqbal Begum (PLD 2010 SC 719);
(j) Sardar Muhammad Ashrafv. Government of NWFP (2011 SCM R 1244).
7. A careful reading of above-cited" judgments gives a complete insight of the scope and applicability of sections 23 and 24 of the Act of 1894 for determining the market value of C the, acquired land and the factors, which ought to be and which ought not to be taken into consideration for this purpose. If the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court is gauged on these parameters, we find no exception to the conclusion recorded into it as to the quantum of compensation awarded to the private respondents, which is the only point involved in the present proceedings. Yet, it will be pertinent to mention here that none of the two above referred provisions of law from the Act of 1894 is exhaustive enough to cater each and every such situation with full precision and accuracy. There may be a situation where a small piece of land, which may not be of much utility and use for its owner, looking to his financial needs, could be sold by him at a lower rate than its actual market value. Conversely, there may be another small piece of land in the same vicinity, which may be of much utility and. Use for some particular person, who mpy, therefore, opt to purchase it at a much higher rate than its actual market value. Similarly, there may be a situation where two plots of equal size and equal dimensions situated in the same locality, one facing road side with commercial value, may fetch much A higher price, while the other facing katchi abadi etc. Or otherwise, may fetch comparatively much lower price. Thus, for determination of proper rate of compensation of the acquired land, not only the factors highlighted in the above- cited two provisions of the Act of 1894 are relevant, but the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case are more important deciding factor in this regard. Thus, the arguments of Mr. Gulzarin Kiyani in the context of registered sale-deeds of some small pieces of land produced by the private respondents in support of their plea regarding higher market rate of the acquired land are of not much relevance or help to the case of appellant. Similarly, his other submission with reference to notification/circular issued by the Sub-Registrar Attack, is devoid of force, as the High Court in its impugned judgment has mainly relied upon the registered sale-deed of another piece of land in the same area, which was, admittedly, purchased by the appellant at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per kanal, and not on the said notification/circular.
8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, we find that it is an admitted position from the record that lands of the private respondents acquired' for the benefit -of the appellant are surrounded from different directions by metalled road; railway link; residential colonies; industrial units, and after acquisition, the same are being used by the appellant Cement Company for commercial purposes by digging out clay. All these facts have been either conclusively proved from the evidence adduced on behalf of the private respondents during the reference proceedings before the Court of Senior Civil Judge Attock or by the clear admissions of DW-3, Lai Khan, examined by the appellant as their witness before the Court, who dearly admitted in his evidence about the existence of two residentia1 colonies in the area, one belonging to the appellant and the other by some other industrial unit; existence of KSB industries belonging to a Gefman Company; existence of Mustafa RCC Pipe Factory; location of lands within the limits of Town Committee, Hassan Abdal; as well as only half kilometer distance of the acquired land from G.T. Road. Not only this but he has also admitted in clear terms about the purchase of 3-kanals of similar land by the appellant in the same area from one private owner Nisar under the directives of the Ombudsman at the rate of Rs.
30,0001- per kanal about three years ago. The two Courts below, have very carefully taken into account all these aspects of the case in their respective judgments and based on proper appreciation of evidence, finally awarded/fixed compensation at Rs. 30,0001- per kanal with other consequential legal benefits permissible under the Act of 1894. This being the position, we find no justification for interference in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
9. Besides, determination of market value of acquired land is essentially an issue of fact, therefore, concurrent findings of the two Courts, unless shown to be arbitrary, fanciful or result of misreading or non-reading of evidence and other relevant record, are not open to challenge on the mere ground that some other conclusion was also possible.
10. As a result of above discussion, these appeals are dismissed, but with no orders as to costs. High Court Judgment Upheld/.