IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---This Civil Appeal arises out of judgment dated 30.11.2016 passed by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. Through the impugned judgment, a Regular First Appeal bearing No,294 of 2012, filed by the Appellant, was dismissed and judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi (Referee Court) pursuant to a Reference (Reference No,82 of 1997) filed by the Respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was upheld.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for decision of this lis are that land measuring 1020 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Lab Thatoo, Tehsil Taxila, District Rawalpindi, was acquired for the Appellant (Air Weapon Complex), vide Award No,501 of 1997 for, "defence purpose". A notification under section 4 of the Act had been issued by the District Collector, Rawalpindi on 17.11.1994. The land in question as per the Revenue record was classified as Maira, Banjar Qadeem and Ghair Mumkin. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was Rs,30,297/-; Rs,11,619/-; and Rs,13,800/-, respectively.
3. The Respondents in pursuance of the public notice filed applications/objections regarding acquisition of the land, its classification and compensation proposed to be awarded for acquisition of the same. Objections were not accepted and the Award was announced on 24.06.1997.
Aggrieved of the Award and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, a Reference under section 18 of the Act was filed by the Respondents. In due course, it was transmitted to the Referee Court. The Referee Court, vide its judgment dated 21.05.2012 held that the land in question was situated next to Grand Trunk Road (G.T. Road) and Peer Mundyala Road. Its value had not been properly determined and its future potential had not been considered.
Further, the market value of the land was much higher than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Consequently, taking into consideration all factors in light of evidence produced by the parties, the Referee Court enhanced the rate of compensation to the tune of Rs,150,000/- and Rs,120,000/- (for on and off G.T. Road) respectively. Apart from enhancement in compensation, the Referee Court also allowed compulsory acquisition charges to 15% and interest @ 8% from the date of possession till payment of compensation.
4. Aggrieved of the judgment of the Referee Court, the Appellant filed the Regular First Appeal before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. The same was dismissed, vide impugned judgment dated 30.11.2016. Hence, this appeal.
5. The learned ASC for the Appellant submits that the learned High Court has acted illegally in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant. He maintains that there was sufficient material on record in the form of agreements to sell which was indicative of actual price of the land which was ignored by the Referee Court as well as the High Court. He further submits that on account of use of the land for "defence purpose" the value of the surrounding land had been reduced which fact was ignored by the High Court. He further argues that the learned High Court erred in law in losing sight of the fact that the Reference was barred by time and was filed beyond the period of limitation provided by law.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. There is no denial of the fact that the land in question is situated next to G.T. Road and Peer Mundyala Road. Therefore, there was lawful justification for the Referee Court to utilize a different standard-to determine its real value. In this context, it not only considered its present market value but also by factored in its future potentialities.
7. It is settled law that in assessing compensation of acquired land, the following factors are to be taken into consideration:-
(a) its market value at the prevalent time and its potential;
(b) one year average of sale taken place before publication of notification under section 4 of the Act of the similar land;
(c) its likelihood of development and improvement;
(d) a willing purchaser would pay to a willing buyer in an open market arms length transaction entered into without any compulsion;
(e) loss or injury occurred by severing of acquired land from other property of the land owner;
(f) loss or injury by change of residence or place of business and loss of profit;
(g) delay in the consummation of acquisition proceedings and;
(h) peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
8. We find that the Referee Court as well as the learned High Court have carefully applied the aforesaid factors to the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the evidence produced and material available on the record. It fixed the amount of compensation which is just and fair considering the current market value of the land, its future potentialities including current, future and reasonably anticipated developments in its vicinity.
9. We have not found any illegality or impropriety in the mode, manner and modus operandi adopted by the learned Courts below to reach their conclusion. Such conclusion is just and fair and in line with the policy of law as enunciated inter alia in Land Acquisition Collector, GSC, NTDC (Wapda) v. Surraya Mehmood Jan (2015 SCM R 28); Muhammad Ashraf v. Government of NWFP (2011 SCM R 1244); Askari Cement Ltd. (Formerly Associated Cement Ltd.) v. Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) Punjab (2013 SCM R 1644) and Province of Punjab v. Begum Aziza (2014 SCM R 75).
10.As far as the argument of learned counsel for the Appellant that in determining fair compensation the learned lower Courts ignored the agreement to sell which painted a different picture about the value of land in question is concerned, we have considered the same and found it to be misconceived. No evidence worth the name was produced to show that the agreements produced by the Appellant ever culminated into any sale transaction. Further, no evidence was produced to show that the agreement related to the land which was of the same nature and was situated in the same locality and vicinity as the acquired land. In the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary, the learned lower Courts were quite justified in relying upon more credible and reliable evidence available on record.
11.Further, we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant that value of the surrounding land had fallen on account of the acquisition in view of the fact that the possibility of development and construction in the vicinity of the land which had been acquired for defence purpose was minimum. There is nothing on record to substantiate the assertion of the learned counsel for the Appellant that any restriction was placed on land owners of adjoining areas to sell their properties and utilize the same for any purpose permitted by law. Not even an iota of evidence was produced that may have indicated fall in the prices of adjacent and adjoining land because of the acquisition of land in question. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant being unsubstantiated is repelled.
12.Adverting to the argument that the Reference was filed beyond the period of limitation, is ex facie misconceived. The record indicates that the Reference was filed before the competent authority within time and it was for the competent authority to refer the same to the Referee Court.
The Respondents had adequately and sufficiently discharged their responsibility by filing the Reference before the competent authority well in time. Therefore, the delay, if any, on the part of the competent authority could not by any stretch of language be attributed to the Respondents nor could they be penalized or held responsible for the same. We are in no manner of doubt that the Reference was filed within time and the findings of the lower Courts in this regard are unexceptionable calling for no interference by this Court.
13.The appellate Court, after careful scrutiny and analysis of the evidence on record has recorded findings of fact. We find no good reason to disagree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned High Court. There is no misreading or non-reading of the evidence at any stage, nor any perversity of reasoning has been observed. The learned counsel for the Appellant has not been able to point out any error of fact or law calling for interference in the judgment of the appellate Court.
14.For reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.