' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SADIQ KHAN, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated, 22-3-2010, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants, has been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that the Collector Land Acquisition, Kotli issued an ward on 10-6-2005 in respect of land measuring 2 kanals 6 marlas bearing Khasra Nos.397 and 398 min situated in village Roli, Tehsil Kotli. The Collector Land Acquisition determined the compensation amount of acquired land as Rs,6,90,0000 per kanal including 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Feeling dissatisfied from the amount of compensation determined by the Collector Land Acquisition, the appellants, herein, filed a reference application before the Collector with the request that the reference may be sent to the Reference Judge, Kotli. The Reference Judge, Kotli after necessary proceedings, enhanced the amount of compensation determined by the Collector Land Acquisition from 6,00,000 to Rs,7,31,720 per kanal in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Being aggrieved from the order of the Reference Judge, the appellants, herein, filed an appeal before the High Court for further enhancement of compensation amount. A learned single Judge in the High Court vide impugned judgment and decree dismissed 'the appeal filed by the appellants, hence the instant appeal.
3. Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that the High Court as well as the Reference Judge have wrongly ignored the sale-deeds executed from the vicinity of the acquired land tendered in evidence. He contended that all the Courts below have not applied their judicial mind while handing down the impugned judgments. He contended that the acquired land is of commercial nature as per evidence adduced by the appellants but the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. He further agued that the Collector Land Acquisition and the Reference Judge have determined the amount of compensation on the basis of an award which was issued a year prior to the award under consideration. He contended that within one year the prices of the land have twicely increased due to de-valuation in the currency. He next argued that the documentary evidence in shape of sale- deeds produced by the appellants before the Reference Judge has totally been ignored, therefore, the judgments passed by the courts below are not maintainable.
4. While controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Raja, the learned counsel for the respondents, forcefully defended the impugned judgment and decree. He argued that the suit property is not of commercial nature rather it is an agricultural piece of land, which is situated far away from the main road, therefore, the Collector Land Acquisition has rightly determined the compensation of acquired land. Therefore Judge keeping in view the overall circumstances enhanced the compensation amount which is sufficient to meet the ends of justice and the High Court has rightly concurrent with the judgment of the Reference Judge. The appellants have advanced no cogent and sagacious ground for further enhancement of the amount of compensation, therefore, the impugned judgment needs no interference by this Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. And also perused the record. It is alleged in the reference application that the Collector Land Acquisition has not determined the compensation of acquired land in accordance with market value prevailing at that time. It is also alleged that the market value of the land is not less than 40,000 per kanal and the Collector has undervalued the same. The Reference Judge after summoning and receiving the objections from the respondents, framed issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties. The learned Reference Judge in the light of the evidence of the parties brought on record, enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs,7,31,720. The appellants in support of their claim have produced the oral as well as the documentary evidence. The perusal of the statements of the witnesses produced by the appellants shows that the witnesses have B not proved the claim of the appellants made in the reference application. All the witnesses have deposed in cross- examination they have heard that the land in the vicinity of the acquired land is being sold at the rate of 27/28 Lac, per kanal. All the witnesses have deposes that they are not in the knowledge of any sale-deed executed at the rate of 27/28 Lac, per kanal. Such a statement cannot be relied which is based on some hearsay evidence. Moreover, the appellants have brought on record the sale-deeds of different dates, executed in the year, 2006. The appellants failed to produce the marginal witnesses of the aforementioned sale-deeds to prove the fact whether the land sold through these sale-deeds has actually been sold at the rate incorporated in these sale-deeds or not. Moreover, the sale-deeds produced and relied upon by the appellants are of the years, 2006, executed proximately three years after issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is provided that in determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions containing sections 23 and 24 of the Act. For proper appreciation section 23 of the Act, is reproduced as under:- "23 Matters to be considered in determining compensation.
(1) in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the court shall take into consideration.-- ' First, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1); ' Secondly; the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; ' Thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land; ' Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; ' Fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and ' Sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting, from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
(2) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."
' The perusal of the above statutory provision clearly shows that the Collector while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for acquired land, shall take into consideration the market value of the ,land at the date of the publication of notification under section 4, the damage sustain by the person interested, the damage, if any, sustain by the person interested at the time of the Collector's taking possession etc. Section 23 provides a list of matters which shall be considered by the Collector Land Acquisition at the time of determination of the amount of compensation, whereas section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the matters incorporated in the said section shall be neglected at the time of determination of amount of compensation by the Collector or the Court. The Act contains a comprehensive mode for determination of the market value of the property. It is now century old law and the superior courts, in this regard, have enunciated that the property of a citizen can only be acquired for public purpose. Keeping in view the criteria laid down in the Act, we are of the view that the Reference Judge as well as the High Court, after application of judicial mind in accordance with the provision of Land Acquisition Act, have passed the impugned judgment and decree.
6. We have also perused the sale-deeds which have been placed on file, but these sale-deeds are not helpful to the case of the appellants because the same have been executed in the year 2006 much after the publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 23 of the Act clearly produced that the Collector Land Acquisition while determining the amount of compensation shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of notification under section 4 subsection (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The sale-deeds produced and relied upon by the appellants have been executed in the year 2006 much after the publication of the notification, therefore, the reference Judge rightly ignored these sale-deeds. The appellants have also brought on record an award of the land acquired for the purpose of construction of sports stadium. In our estimation the Collector has rightly relied upon the same and enhanced the compensation amount from Rs,6,00,000 to 7,31,720 per kanal in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges.
The High Court has rightly concurred with the findings of the reference Judge. In our opinion, the enhancement in compensation amount as Rs,7,31,720 per kanal in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges by the reference Judge and upheld by the High Court appears to have been made on the basis of evidence brought on record. In our considered view, while taking into consideration all the evidence, the market value of the acquired land fixed by the reference Judge is just and equitable, therefore, the judgments of the reference Judge as well as the High Court need no interference by this Court. Neither the counsel for the appellants nor the record supports the version of the appellants.
' The appellants have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments of the reference Judge as well as that of the High Court, therefore, finding no force, this appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.