' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---All these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, therefore, are being disposed of together. The factual backdrop of the matters is:- that for the purposes of the construction of an International Airport, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), vide notification dated 11-8-1991, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) had proceeded to acquire the land inter alia, of the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos,1065 to 1067 of 2010 (hereinafter called the owners) which was so needed by the Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA) for the above purpose. Such land was situated within the revenue estate of four Mouza(s) in the Rawalpindi District and the LAC divided the same in five categories i,e, Liapara, assessed at the rate of Rs,23,716; Lass for Rs,16,800; Maira for Rs,16,800; Rakkar for Rs,8,668; Banjar Qadeem for Rs,4,334 and Ghair Mumkin for Rs,2,167 per kanal. Aggrieved of the above, the owners filed references under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi and upon trial, the learned Judge enhanced the value to Rs,1,00,000 per kanal, considering the entire land as forming one category, along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges (though termed as interest), vide judgment and decree dated 23-6-2008. This judgment and decree had been challenged by both, the LAC/CAA, as also the owners, before the learned Lahore High Court in appeals. The latter sought further increase in the compensation amount, but never agitated for the increase of 15% charges to 25% as per section 23(2) of the Act on the plea that CAA is a company, while the former asked for the reduction in the compensation. The learned High Court has partly accepted the appeals filed by the LAC/CAA and has reduced the amount of compensation to Rs,70,130 by assigning reasons, (to be reproduced in the succeeding part of the judgment) and the 15% charges, as awarded by the trial Court, were maintained. The appeals filed by the owners for the increase in the compensation were however dismissed. Hence Civil Appeals Nos,1231 to 1238 of 2010 have been filed by the LAC/CAA impugning both the judgments and decrees of the learned Senior Civil Judge and the learned High Court and have prayed for the reduction of the compensation amount, while the Civil Appeals Nos,1065 to 1067 of 2010 are by the owners primarily for the enhancement thereof.
2. It has been argued by Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for LAC/CAA, that the enhancement in the compensation which was so determined by the LAC/CAA has been erroneously and illegally interfered with, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, which augmentation was/is not justified on the basis of the evidence brought by the owners on the record; though some decrease has been made in appeal(s) by the learned High Court, but still the compensation as assessed is on the higher side, which does not commensurate with the potentiality, location etc. And the rules settled by the Superior Courts for the determination of such a price. On the other hand, learned counsel(s) for the owners have argued that the value of the land was much more and therefore the owners had asked for the compensation at the rate of Rs,2,00,000 per kanal, but such amount has not been awarded to them, for unjustified reasons, though they have fully proved and established on the record that the market value of the land was the one which they had sought vide their reference(s), filed under section 18 of the Act. It is also argued that because the land in question had been acquired for the company, therefore in terms of section 23(2) of the Act, the owners are entitled to the compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 25% rather.15%, which against the law, has been withheld by the two Courts.
3. Heard. On perusal of the record, we find that on account of the evidence led by the parties, which had been duly examined by the two Courts below, the owners undoubtedly had made out a case for the enhancement in the compensation amount, but the question is about the quantum thereof or in other words what should be such enhanced amount, which could be termed as the 'market value' of the acquired property, on the touchstone of the criteria, in that behalf, settled by the Superior Courts of the country and on the basis of the evidence of the owners/parties on the record. In this regard the learned Senior Civil Judge has determined the amount at a sum of Rs,1,00,000 per kanal, by primarily taking into consideration certain sale mutations and sale instruments which were produced by the owners in their evidence, but these mutations/instruments are pertaining to the transactions much after the notification under section 4 had been issued; thus, such evidence was not solely and primarily the evidence worth consideration qua the assessm ent of the market value. The learned Appellate Court in its judgment has duly taken note of the above and rightly excluded Exh.A23 to Exh.A37, which (documents) envisaged the transactions much later in time. The appellate court has held that the claim of the owners propounded in their references, in respect of different revenue estates, and for different categories of land was different, therefore, the Court while considering the above factor as an important aspect of the matter, on the basis of the average rule, as also keeping in view the settled principles laid down by the Superior Courts for the purposes of the fixation of the market value, has fixed Rs,70130 per kanal. In this regard it has been opined that "Out of the four villages, the maximum average A compensation claimed is Rs, 70,130 per kanal for the village Mohri Kahtran.
Numerous housing Societies have mushroomed in the adjoining area. Keeping all the factors like potentiality, Location, Market value and the absence of the free will to sell, the amount of Rs, 70,130 per kanals is the compensation that could be awarded to the landowners of the above mentioned 4 adjoining villages whose land has been acquired." We do not find that such reasoning and the view set forth by the learned High Court, is against the established principles for the appreciation of the evidence on the record, especially in regard to the fixation of 'market value' for the acquisition of the properties under the Act. Thus, no interference qua the fixation of the market value by the learned High Court, calls for any interference on any factual or legal plain.
4. In order, to appreciate the other plea raised by the owners (appellants in Civil Appeals Nos,1065 to 1067 of 2010) that they are entitled to the compulsory charges at the rate of 25 %, as is envisaged by section 23(2) of the Act, because CAA is a company in terms of the said provision [Section 23(2)] when, its status is considered in the light of section 3 of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 (Ordinance, 1982), and this Court's verdict in Mst. Sumaira Gul v. Land Acquisition Collector G.S.C. WAPDA, Peshawar and others (2011 SCM R 118); a case though pertaining to acquisition of land for WAPDA, but that body (Wapda) had analogous status to that of CAA, i,e, of a company and it has been held that WAPDA is a company and, therefore, this Court had awarded the compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 25%.For the resolution of the above, I find expedient to reproduce section 23(2) of the Act which reads as under:-- "In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the Court shall award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, if the acquisition has been made for a public purpose and a sum of twenty five per centum on such market-value if the acquisition has been made for a company."
' The noted provision came up for consideration and interpretation before a four Members Bench of this Court in a case reported as Haji Muhammad Yaqoob and another v. Collector, Land Acquisition/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar (1997 SCM R 1670). The relevant facts of that case are:- that certain land was acquired for the purposes of construction of a residential colony for the WAPDA employees. One of the questions which emerged for the resolution in the matter before the Court was, whether the owners (whose land was acquired) were entitled to 25% of compulsory charges, instead of 15% from WAPDA, being a company, for the purposes of section 23(2), the Court held:- "The above quoted provision clearly provided that the Court while passing an award shall also award a sum equal to 15% of such market value as may be determined by the Court in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition if the acquisition has been made for a public purpose and a sum equal to 25 % of such market value if acquisition has been made for a Company. The learned counsel for landowners are unable to demonstrate that the acquisition of the land by the Government was for a 'Company' and not for a "Public purpose" (underline is by us).
' In this connection, it may be mentioned that the notification dated 3-12-1973 issued under section 4 of the Act contained the statement "that the land is likely to be required to be taken by the Government at the public expense for public purpose, namely for the construction of WAPDA Residential Colony at Peshawar". The learned counsel for the landowners are unable to demonstrate that acquisition of land by the Government at public expense for construction of residential colony for the employees of Wapda did not constitute a public purpose. We are, therefore, of the view that the award of compulsory acquisition charges by the referee Court which was upheld by the High Court, at the rate of 15 % does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for our interference."
' Another judgment reported as Nisar Ahmed Khan and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Swabi and others (PLD 2002 SC 25) was a case in which a similar question was involved and the land had been acquired again for the purposes of WAPDA (SCARP) for the remodeling drains. The Referee Judge in the matter had awarded 25% of compulsory acquisition charges which was reduced to 15% by the learned High Court in appeal, and the question before this Court was "whether the High Court was right in reducing the amount of compulsory acquisition charges from 25% to 15%", this Court (a Bench comprising of three Members) held as under:-- "Adverting to the submission made by learned counsel for the land owners that, the High Court committed a grave error of law by awarding compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15 % as against 25 % awarded by the learned Referee Judge, we find that learned Members of the Division Bench of the High Court were justified in doing so. Admittedly, the lands were acquired for a public purpose and not for private use by WAPDA (emphasis supplied by us).
' Learned Division Bench further held that WAPDA though a "company" but since lands in question had been acquired for public purpose, land owners were entitled to 15% compulsory charges under section 13(2) of the Act instead of 25%. This principle was also affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in Muhammad Yaqoob v. Collector Land Acquisition (1997 SCMR 1670) (emphasis supplied by us)."
' In the matter of Collector Land Acquisition and others v. Muhammad Said through Legal Heirs and others (2001 SCM R 1032) the land acquired therein again was for the purposes of remodeling of the drains by the WAPDA and the landowners was found entitled to 15% charges only. In Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others (1991 SCM R 2164) the land had been acquired for the purposes of setting up of an industrial estate by Sarhad Development Authority and similar question cropped up for the answer and this Court enunciated:-- "20. A perusal of the above section indicates that it has two parts, namely, (i) if the land is acquired for a public purpose, the Court is to award 15 per centum on the determined market value in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition, and (ii) 25 per centum on such market value if the acquisition has been made for a Company. The above two parts are to be read disjunctively as the word "and" can be read "or" and vice versa if the context of the language of the provisions of a statute so requires. It cannot be denied that the land was acquired for a public purpose for establishing an Industrial Estate for the development of N.W.F.P. We may observe that it seems that the above point was not urged before the Courts below and, therefore, we are not inclined even otherwise to entertain the above submission (emphasis supplied by us)."
' From the survey of the above case-law, it is crystal clear that the entitlement of the owner(s) to 25% charges is not founded solely on the factum that the beneficiary of the acquisition is a company simpliciter, rather the foundational and critical aspect in this regard is the purpose for which the land/property is being acquired. If it is for public purpose, but acquisition is for a company even, may be created under the Company law(s) or under a specific statute, which confers a company status to it, the owners shall not be entitled to 25%, rather 15%; however where the property is being acquired for a company for its private holding, vesting and use, the owners shall have a right to 25% charges. It has been seen that in the judgments quoted above, that the land acquired, inter alia, for WAPDA even for establishing a residential colony or remodeling of drains etc. Was held for public purpose(s) and only 15% charges were allowed to the owneRs, Therefore, simply on the ground that the status of the CAA as per section 3 of the Ordinance, 1982 is that of a corporate body, which can acquire and hold property, by itself, would not mean that the owners become entitled to 25% on that account.
' There can be no cavil that in the instant case the construction of Airport is a public purpose, and the land is being acquired for that purpose, rather as a private holding of CAA, enabling it (CAA) to hold the same as its asset(s) for private use. Though, in the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellants reported as Mst. Sumaira Gul v. Land Acquisition Collector G.S.C. WAPDA, Peshawar and others (2011 SCM R 118), compulsory charges have been awarded to the landowners to the tune of 25% with reference to WAPDA considering it to be a company in terms of section 23(2) ibid but unfortunately, the law enunciated by this Court in all the judgments quoted above, particularly (the four Members Bench) in Haji Muhammad Yaqoob and another v. Collector, Land Acquisition/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar (1997 SCM R 1670) has not been taken into account, rather no case-law has been considered at all, therefore, we find ourselves bound to follow the law laid down in said judgment and the preponderance of the view, expressed in other dicta, (quoted above) that the determining factor entitling the landowners to 25% compulsory charges as against 15% is the public purpose or otherwise, even if the property had been acquired for a company. We find that the present case qualifies the test of "public purpose" and, therefore, the Courts below have rightly allowed 15% to the owneRs, It may also be mentioned here that the appellants in this case had neither claimed 25% charges either before the learned High Court as is clear from the contents of their memo of appeal (RFA) nor such claim has been set forth in the present memo of appeal, therefore in view of law laid down in Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner Abbottabad and others 1991 SCM R 2164) supra, where the relief was declined on this score, we hold that the appellants cannot claim such amount at this stage. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in both the set of appeals, which are hereby dismissed.