' LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.---Through this single judgement I intend to decide R.F.A. No, 5 of 2012 and R.F.A. No, 13 of 2012 as common question of law and facts is involved in both the appeals.
2. Short facts of the case are that landed property of the respondents-landowners was acquired by the appellants for the construction of Flood Control Khad Warkai CRBC Stage-III, WAPDA D.I.Khan vide Award No, 100 announced on 29-12-2003. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the awarded rates for the acquired land as Rs,2,846/60 per kanal. Respondents did not accept the compensation amount so fixed for their acquired land and filed objection petition for its enhancement. Appellants being acquiring department contested the objection petition. The learned referee court vide its judgment and decree dated 30-9-2011 accepted the objection petition of the landowners and the compensation amount for their acquired land was enhanced from Rs,2,846/60 per kanal to Rs, 15,000 per kanal. This judgment and decree has now been impugned by the appellants through R.F.A. No, 5 of 2012 while the landowners are seeking further increase in the compensation amount through their own Appeal No, 13 of 2012.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No, 5 of 2012 contended that while enhancing the awarded rates of the acquired land, the learned referee Judge has not considered nature of the acquired land which was agricultural in nature having no potentiality of any commercialism or characteristics therein, that the acquired land is not capable to fetch a market price of Rs,15,000 in open market if it is put to a willing purchaser, that there was no material before the learned referee court justifying any enhancement in the awarded rates. The learned counsel lastly argued that the rates of the acquired land as fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector were just and proper.
4. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondents in R.F.A. No, 5 of 2012 and.For the appellants in R.F.A. No, 13 of 2012 contended that the acquired land has commercial characteristics and potentials to get more market price in the open market than the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and even more than the enhanced rates. He contended that by accepting appeal of the land-owners the enhanced rates be further enhanced upto Rs,50,000 per kanal which is correct market value of the acquired land.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully.
6. In the instant case notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 18- 11-1996 and then published in the gazette on 18-2-1997 while possession of the acquired land was taken from the landowners on 20-1-2002 and the award was announced on 29-12-2003 after about seven years of the publication of section 4 of the Act ibid. In the award the Collector while fixing compensation for the acquired land referred to "Osat yaksala" which was based on sale through mutations executed in village Makkar prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
7.
Though section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 commands that while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the time of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act ibid but equally section 11 of the Act also commands that "on the day so fixed or to any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 and into the value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 4". (emphasis supplied).
8. Section 23 of the Act should not be read in isolation but it should be taken into account along with other provisions of the Act. In section 11 of the Act ibid, the Legislature has used the word 'day'.
Purpose of the Legislature by using word 'day' was that the entire process of acquisition be completed within days and no unnecessary delay should occur in the completion of the process of acquisition. In this case notification under section 4 was published on 18-2-1997 while award was announced on 29-12-2003 after a gap of seven years but the awarded rates were fixed on the basis of one year average of 1996-1997. This is unjustice and opposite to the mandate and command of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which imports that the acquisition process should not be delayed unnecessarily.
9. I have gone through Ex.PW.3/5 which is Osat yaksala for the same mouza prepared for the period commencing from 18-12-2002 to 28-12-2007 (the year of Award) wherein market value of per kanal is shown as Rs, 13,883/60 while in the subsequent Osat Yaksala, the market value of one kanal is higher than Rs, 13,883 showing an upward trend in the transactions of real states.
10. Taking into account the above facts and material, the enhancement in the awarded rates from Rs,2846 per kanal to Rs,15000 per kanal cannot be termed as exorbitant one.
11. Another aspect of the case is that this court has already dismissed appeal of the acquiring department on 30-11-2010 being R.F.A. No, 18 of 2006. In that appeal present award was under consideration where landowners Muhammad Saleem etc; had sought enhancement of the awarded rates of their acquired land and the referee court vide its judgment and decree dated 7- 6-2006 had enhanced the compensation amount from Rs, 2846/60 to Rs, 15000 and this court by dismissing appeal of the department maintained the enhanced rates for the acquired land.
12. Now coming to the connected appeal bearing R.F.A. No,13 of 2012, the appellants/landowners have not brought any material justifying further enhancement in the awarded rates. The report of the local commission suggesting Rs,50,000 per kanal as market value of the acquired land is not based on any sound proof and documentary evidence and the same cannot be made basis for further enhancement. This report was rightly discharged by the learned trial Court to the extent of suggested rates, hence for the above reasons, this court is not inclined to further enhance the awarded rates.
13. For what has been discussed above, I did not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned referee court which is hereby maintained and both the appeals as mentioned above are dismissed.