' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22.12.2003, whereby three Regular First Appeals i.e, RFAs Nos. 393, 402 and 532 of 2000, were dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that the property in dispute i.e, land measuring 32 kanals and 7 marlas situated in Village Androon, Kasur City, was originally owned by the present Respondent. On 17.2.1977, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894" for acquisition of the said land, was issued by the Collector, Kasur, for the purpose of extension of a 132 K.V. Grid Station by Appellant No, 2 i.e, WAPDA, and was published in the Punjab Gazette on 27.09.1977. On 12.5.1986, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, was issued by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and the same was published in the Punjab Gazette on 31.5.1986 and eventually on 30.6.1988, an Award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, (GSC), WAPDA, Lahore, wherein it was held that the present Respondent was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs, 6,000/- per marla and compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15%.
3. Two References were filed by the parties before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, who vide judgment and decree dated 27.5.2000 accepted the Reference of the present Respondent and enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs, 6,000/- per marla to Rs, 8,000/- per marla. The learned Senior Civil Judge further held that the Respondent was entitled to compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 25 % of the total amount. However, the Reference filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge.
4. The said judgment and decree dated 27.5.2000 was challenged in appeals by the respective parties before the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore. The present Respondent filed RFA No, 532 of 2000, seeking enhancement in compensation, while two separate appeals i.e, RFAs Nos. 393 & 402 of 2000 were filed by the present Appellants, seeking reduction in the compensation granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge and it was also urged that the Respondent was only entitled to compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15%. All these appeals were heard together and were dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 22.12.2003.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellants that the land in question was acquired for a public purpose i.e, extension of a 132 K.V. Grid Station, which assertion has not been disputed by the opposite side. Furthermore, even by operation of law i.e, Section 13(3) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, acquisition of any land for the Authority under this Section is deemed to be an acquisition for a public purpose, therefore, in view of Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894 compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15% were payable to the Respondent and not 25%, as has been held by the two learned Courts below. It is further contended that the compensation has been determined primarily on the basis of a letter dated 8.6.1988, which was a result of fraud and fabrication and the subsequent letter in this behalf dated 4.8.1988 has been ignored. It is next contended that the two Courts below have ignored the entire evidence, produced by the present Appellants, during the course of proceedings, hence, the impugned judgments and decrees are not sustainable under the law and are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the Appellants, relied upon the cases, reported as Nisar Ahmad Khan and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Swabi and others (PLD 2002 SC 25), Collector Land Acquisition and others v. Muhammad Said through Legal Heirs and others (2001 SCMR 1032), Abdul Sartar v. Land Acquisition Collector Highways Department and others (2010 SCMR 1523), Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Maharani Biswal and others (2012 SCMR 1179). Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and another v. Gobinda Chandra Makal and another (2012 SCMR 1201) and Civil Aviation Authority through Protect Director and others v. Rab Nawaz and others (2013 SCMR 1124).
6. The learned counsel for the Respondent has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants. It is contended that the compensation has been determined on the basis of evidence available on record, including the communication issued by the Board of Revenue and the other material. It is added that the Appellants were unable to prove letter dated 8.6.1988, which was a result of fraud or, otherwise fabricated. It is further added that the two learned Courts below by way of the impugned judgments and decrees have concurrently held that the Respondent is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs, 8,000/- per marla and such finding of fact is based on evidence available on the record and cannot be interfered with by this Court in the instant jurisdiction. It is next added that Appellant No, 2 i.e, WAPDA is a Company, as defined by Section 3(e) of the Act- of 1894, hence, by virtue of Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894, the Respondent is entitled to compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 25%, as has been correctly held by the two learned Courts below. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon the judgments, reported as Secretary to Government of NWFP, Peshawar and 15 others v. Haji Fateh Khan and 15 others (2001 SCMR 974), Mst. Sumaira Gul v. Land Acquisition Collector G.S. C.
WAPDA Peshawar (2011 SCMR 118), Askari Cement Limited (Formerly Associate Cement Limited) through Chief Executive v. Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) Punjab (2013 SCMR 1644) and Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed Khan v. Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot (PLD 1983 Lahore 178).
7. Heard. Available record perused.
8. The mode for determining such market-value and the other relevant factors, which must necessarily be considered, while arriving at a fair and just decision, as to the compensation due and payable upon acquisition of land under the Act of 1894 have variously came up for adjudication before this Court and have been consolidated in a recent judgment of this Court, reported as Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector and another v. Begum Aziza (2014 SCMR 75). It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment, which reads as under:-- "6. ... Thus in determining the quantum of compensation the exercise may not be restricted to the time of the aforesaid notification but its future value may be taken into account. In Abdur Rauf Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector/D. C. (1991 SCMR 2164) this Court while dilating upon the question of rate of compensation laid down following principles germane to section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act which may be kept in view.
' Those are as follows:-- "(i) That an entry in the Revenue Record as to the nature of the land may not be conclusive, for example, land may be shown in Girdawari as Maira, but because of the existence of a well near the land, makes it capable of becoming Chahi land;
(ii) That while determining the potentials of the land, the use of which the land is capable of being put, ought to be considered;
(iii) That the market value of the land is normally to be taken as existing on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act but for determining the same, the prices on which similar land situated in the vicinity was sold during the preceding 12 months and not 6-7 years may be considered including other factors like potential value etc."
7. The afore-referred ratio was reiterated with greater depth in Murad Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector (1999 SCMR 1647) wherein the Court found that though the expression "market value" appearing in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been defined but its import can he appreciated from the precedent case-law. The Court deduced from the precedent case-law the following principles:--
(i) The data from which the market value of the land can be estimated is given in Rule 13 of the North-West Frontier Province Circular No, 54 issued presumably under section 55 of the Act.
(Premier Sugar Mills Limited v. Hayatullah Khan (PLD 1956 (W.P.) Pesh. 67).
(ii) The best method to work out the market value is the practical method of a prudent man laid down in section 3 of the Evidence Act to examine and analyse all the material and evidence available on the point and to determine the price which a willing purchaser would pay to willing seller of the acquired land. "The Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi v. Lieut. General Wajid Ali Khan Burki (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 469).
(iii) Sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation the Court shall take into consideration the market value, loss by reason of severing such land from his other land, acquisition injuriously affecting his other property or his earning in consequence of change of residence or place of business and damage, if any, 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. This, however, is not exhaustive of other injuries or loss which may be suffered by an owner on account of compulsory acquisition. (Province of West Pakistan and another v. M. Salim Ullah and others (PLD 1966 SC 547
(iv) The best method of determination of the market price of the plots of land under the acquisition is to rely on instances of sale of it near about the date of notification under section 4(i) of the Act.
The next best method is to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent lands made shortly before and after the notification. When the market value is to be determined on the basis of the instances of sale of land in the neighbouring locality, the potential value of the land need not be separately awarded because such sales cover the potential value. (Togendra Nath Chatterjee and others v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1971 Calcutta 458).
(v) It is obvious that the law provides determination of compensation not with reference to classification or nature of land but its market value at the relevant time No doubt, for determining the market value, classification or the nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but that is not the whole truth. An area may be Banjar Qadeem or Barani as in the present case but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits. (Pakistan and another v. Rehm Dad and another (1980 CLC 574).
(vi) According to the well-settled principle, while determining the value of the compensation the market value of the land at the time of requisition/acquisition and its potentiality have to be kept in consideration. (Pakistan v. Din Muhammad and others (1983 CLC1281).
(vii) Consideration should be had to all the potential uses to which the land can be put, as well as all the advantages, present or future, which the land possesses in the hands of the owners. (Mst.
Khatu and others v. Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Thatta (PLD 1977 Kar. 203).
(viii) In determining the quantum of fair compensation the main criterion is the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction. (Din Muhammad v. General Manager, Communication and others (PLD 1978 Lah. 1135).
(ix) The measure of fair compensation is the value of the property in open market which a seller voluntarily entering into a transaction of sale can reasonably demand from a purchaser this means that we, have to determine the value of the land in the open market at the relevant time on the assumption that the notification of acquisition did not exist. (Province of Punjab v. Sher Muhammad and another (PLD 1983 Lah. 578).
(x) While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the past sales should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determined by examining (if necessary as Court witness) local property dealers or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. In appropriate cases there should be no compunction even relying upon the oral testimony with respect to market value of the property intended to be acquired, because even while deciding cases involving question of life and death, the Courts rely on oral testimony alone and do not insist on the production of documentary evidence. The credibility of such witnesses would, however, have to be kept in mind and it would be for the Court in each case to determine the weight to be attached to their testimony. It would be useful and even necessary, to examine such witnesses while determining the market prices of the land in questions because of the prevalent tendency that in order to save money on the purchases of stamp papers and to avoid the imposition of heavy gain tax levied on sale of property, people declare or show a much smaller amount as the price of the land purchased by them than the price actually paid. The previous sales of the land. Cannot, therefore, be always taken to be an accurate measure for the determining the price of land intended to be acquired. (Fazalur Rehman and others v. General Manager, S.I.D.B. And another (PLD 1986 SC 158).
(xi) The sale-deed and mutation' entries do serve as an aid to the prevailing market value.
(Government of Pakistan v. Maulvi Ahmed Saeed (1983 CLC 414).
(xii) It is a well-settled law that in cases of Compulsory acquisition effort has to be made to find out what the market value of the acquired land was or could be on the material date. While so venturing the most important factor to be kept in mind would be the complexion and character of the acquired land on the material date. The potentialities it possessed on that date are also to he kept in view in determining a fair compensation to be awarded to the owner who is deprived of his land as a result of compulsory acquisition under the Act. (Central Government of Pakistan v. Sardar Fakhar-e-Alam and another (1985 CLC 2228).
(xiii) The value of the land of the adjoining area which was simultaneously acquired and for which different formula of compensation has been adopted, should be taken into consideration. (Raza Muhammad Abdullah through his Legal Heirs v. Government of Pakistan and others (1986 MLD 252).
(xiv) The phrase "market value of the land" as used in section 23(1), of the Act means "value to the owner" and, therefore, such value must be the basis for determination of compensation. The standard must be no, subjective standard but an objective one. Ordinarily, the objective standard would be the price that owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The property must be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the determination but its potential value must be taken into consideration. (Abdul Wahid and others v. The Deputy Commissioner (1986 MLD 381).
8. .Thus it took four years for appellants to complete the acquisition proceedings. The prices may have escalated during this period and this escalation has to be kept in view while assessing the potential value of the land. This is in line with the law laid down by this Court in Province of Sindh v.
Ramzan (PLD 2004 SC 512), Abdul Majeed, etc. v. Muhammad Subhan, etc. (1999 SCMR 1245 at 1255) and Pakistan Burma Shell Limited v. Province of N. W. F. P., etc. (1993 SCMR 1700)." (Emphasis supplied)
9. The principles that can be gleaned from the aforesaid judicial precedents are that the term "market-value" as employed in Section 23 of the Act of 1894 implies the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing buyer in an open market arms length transaction entered into without any compulsion. Such determination must be objective rather than subjective. While undertaking this exercise, contemporaneous transactions of the same, adjoining or adjacent as well as the land in the same vicinity or locality; in dissenting precedents, may be taken into account. An award of compensation of a similar, adjacent, adjoining land or in respect of the land acquired in the same vicinity or locality cannot be ignored. The classification of the land in the Revenue Record cannot be the sole criteria for determining its value and its potential i.e, the use of which the said land can be put, must also be a factor. In this behalf, the use of the land in its vicinity needs to be examined.
' (sic) page 104 of the paper-book, indicated that the present market price of the land in question is Rs, 8,000/- per marla. The said letter i.e, Exh-R-I is also indicative of the escalation of the market price of the land from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894; and the pronouncement of the Award. The potential value of the land in view of its strategic location cannot be ignored. It is in evidence that the land in question is situated on the main Lahore-Kasur- Ferozpur Road, Lahore, within the limits of the Municipal Committee, Kasur, near the Sessions Court, Kasur opposite the Cantonment Area, in the vicinity of the Tehsil Municipal Office & the District Courts and is adjoining the Highway Rest House. The Canal Colony is also located nearby. It has also been brought on the record that in the year 1991, the Municipal Committee, Kasur, sold property near the land in question in an open auction, which fetched price at the rate of Rs, 13,750/- per marla. It is also available on the record that at the time of announcement of the Award, a Representative of Appellant No, 2 i.e, WAPDA was present and stated that the rate of Rs, 6,000/- per marla was acceptable to the Department. It is on the basis of the aforesaid evidence that the learned Referee Judge/Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, concluded that the compensation to which the Respondent is entitled was at the rate of Rs, 8,000/- per marla.
11. The mainstay of the contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellants appears to be that the adjudication is based upon a letter dated 08.6.1988, purportedly issued by the Board of Revenue, which was a result of fraud and fabrication and in support whereof the reliance was placed on the letter dated 4.8.1988. The contention of the learned counsel is misconceived, as the determination of compensation primarily is based on the material referred to in the preceding paragraph and not merely on the letter dated 08.6.1988. Even otherwise, neither the Inquiry Report nor its author, which preceded the letter dated 4.8.1988 were produced to substantiate its contents.
12. In the above circumstances, the findings arrived at by the learned Referee Judge/Senior Civil Judge, Kasur that the Respondent was entitled to the compensation of the land at the rate of Rs, 8,000/- per marla, which has been affirmed in appeal by the learned High Court, is based on a reasonable and fair appreciation of the evidence available on record untainted by any perversity or misreading and non-reading. The two learned Courts below have arrived at the quantum of compensation payable by relying upon material considerations, which have been held to be relevant by this Court in its various pronouncements referred to and re-produced hereinabove. In the above circumstances, we are not persuaded to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact in this behalf.
13. Adverting now to the question of compulsory acquisition charges payable to the present Respondent, the case of the Appellants is that since the land in question was acquired for a public purpose, therefore, such compulsory acquisition charges were payable at the rate of 15% and not 25%, as granted by the two learned Courts below, while the case of the Respondent is that Appellant No, 2, WAPDA is a Company, as defined by Section 3(e) of the Act of 1894, therefore, compulsory acquisition charges are payable at the rate of 25%, as has been held by way of the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the Respondent, in this behalf, has relied upon the judgment of this Court, reported as Mst. Sumaira Gul v. Land Acquisition Collector G.S.C. WAFDA, Peshawar and others (2011 SCMR 118).
14. Compulsory acquisition charges are payable under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894, 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."
15. No doubt, in the case of Mst. Sumaira Gul (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent, it has been held that Appellant No, 2 WAPDA is a "Company", as defined by Section 3(e) of the Act of 1894 and therefore, compulsory acquisition charges in respect of the land acquired for its benefit are payable at the rate of 25%. However, there are several pronouncements of this Court, to the contrary wherein it has been held that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, even by a Company, as defined by Section 3(e) of the Act of 1894, compulsory acquisition charges are payable at the rate of 15% only, however, when the land is acquired simpliciter by a Company for its private use, compulsory acquisition charges are payable at the rate of 25%. The aforesaid conflict has been resolved by this Court in its recent judgment, reported as Civil Aviation Authority through Project Director and others v. Rab Nawaz and others (2013 SCMR 1124). The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:-- "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 SCMR 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 dearly 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 he 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 SCMR 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 SCMR 2164) the land had been, acquired fot 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." (Emphasis supplied)
16. The judgment of this Court in the case of Mst. Sumaira Gul (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent was also considered by this Court in the case of Civil Aviation Authority
(ibid) in respect whereof, it was observed as follows:-- "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. WAFDA, Peshawar and others (2011 SCMR 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 SCMR 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 SCMR 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." (Emphasis supplied)
17. It is clear and obvious from a bare reading of Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894, which reveals that the purpose for which the land is acquired, is the determining factor for ascertaining compulsory acquisition charges. If the purpose, as is admitted in the instant case, is a public in nature, then such compulsory acquisition charges will be payable at the rate of 15%, even if, such acquisition is for a Company. However, when the land is acquired simplicitery for a Company for its private use only then the, compulsory acquisition charges will be payable at the rate of 25% . Such an interpretation of Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894 is consistent with the precedent law, on the subject, as laid down by this Court in its judgments referred to above. Therefore, the two learned Courts below have erred in awarding the compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 25% instead of 15%.
18. Consequently, this Civil Appeal is partly allowed. The compensation payable to the Respondent is maintained at the rate of Rs, 8,000/- per marla, however, the said Respondent is held entitled to compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15 % only. The impugned judgments and decrees are hereby modified in the above terms.