ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2012 (hereinafter "the impugned Judgment ") passed by learned District Judge-III, Quetta, (hereinafter "the trial Court" ) in Land Acquisition Reference No.02 of 2011 and the appellant/respondent filed this Regular First Appeal ("RF A").
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that the Government of Balochistan was in need 140483 sq.ft. land owned by the private land owners for its extension and improvement of the Airport Road situated in various Khasra of Mahal and Mouza of Patwar Circles Durrani and Belei Tehsil and District Quetta, whereas the property of the respondent/appellant subjected to the said extension of road and in this respect a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereafter "the Act" ) was issued. Subsequently , notice under section 9 of the Act
(ibid) was issued and the land owners were directed to submit their objections to the acquisition of their lands to which the respondent/appellant duly replied.
3. After completion of the proceedings, the Land Acquisition Collector passed his Award bearing No.85(3)-RB/2003 dated 29.05.2004 and awarded the compensation to the respondent/land owners at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for Karez Sher Dil and Rs.70/- for Karez Sadiq along with fifteen percent compulsory acquisition charges under the provisions of the Act.
4. The respondent/land owners was aggrieved from the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and so he filed a Reference under section 18 of the Act in which the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was challenged. The Reference was entrusted to the learned Additiona l District Judge-III, Quetta, who summoned the respondent/land owners. The respondent/land owners filed detailed written statement and out of the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the respondent has acquired petitioner's land measuring 140483 sq.ft. for extension and improvement of Airport Road?
2. Whether Executive District Officer (Revenue) Quetta passed impugned award dated 29.05.2004 in violation of relevant provision of law as well as without having taken into account average rate formula regarding lands?
3. Whether the petitioner expressed objection on Award No.85(3) RB/2003 dated 29.05.2004, after its issuance?
4. Whether petitioners are entitled for relief claimed for?
5. Relief?
5. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and the learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the document and oral evidence available on record, answered the Reference in positive and awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.300/- sq.ft. along with fifteen percent compulsory acquisition charges required under section 23(2) of the Act.
6. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Collector Quetta and Secretary , Government of Balochistan, Communication and W orks Department, Civil Secretariat, Quetta, being aggrieved has filed this RF A.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on record with their able assistance.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that (Ex.D/2-A) is the site plan of the acquired piece of land which shows its location house of the respondent, other houses, police investigation centre, IT University , Airport, are situated which shows the best location of the acquired track of land. The Land Acquisition Collector instead of applying his independent mind as to the determinatio n of the fair compensation of the acquired land based his award on the average price furnished to him by Tehsil Of ficial Quetta for a period of one year .
9. Now it is settled law that the present trend of extra ordinary hike of landed property , the criteria of one year average cannot be made basis for assessment of compensation amount of acquire d land. In case of acquisition of land, the land is acquired in the interest of general public at public expense on the basis of sacrifice of an individual, which requires to adequately compensating the individual in extra ordinary manner and the compensation should be fixed in the light of criteria of a willing vendor and that of a needy vendee. In this regard wisdom can be drawn from case titled Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Mst. lqbal Begum and others reported as PLD 2010 Supreme Court 719, wherein it has been held as under:-- "the principles laid down for determination of compensation reflect anxiety of law-giver to compensate those deprived of property adequately enough so as to be given gold for gold and not copper for gold" ....One year's average of sales taking place before publication of notification under section 4 of similar land is merely one of the modes of ascertaining market value and is not an absolute yardstick for assessment of compensation. Moreover , status of acquired land, its potentialities and its likelihood of development and improvement would be necessary factors for determining rate of compensation".
10. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in its award is not found according to legal, equitable criteria, which has been laid down under the law and the wisdom laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, for proper assessment of compensation the only available piece of evidence is produced by the respondent/land owners particularly which pertains to the revenue extract kept and maintained by the Revenue Department in term the respondent/land owners i.e. The properties which were purchased in the said Mouza i.e. Karez Sher Dil and Karez Sadiq from the year 1992-2005. The rate of the land in Mouza Karez Sher Dil in the year 1992 was up to Rs.92/- in the year 1996 enhanced up to Rs.125/- and even in 1999 the respondeht/land owners sold his/their land in Karez Sher Dil vide mutation No.202 (Ex.A W/9) at the rate of Rs.397/- which again vide mutation No.366/- (Ex.A W/10) was sold at the rate of Rs.1000/- in 2004. Whereas as regards Mahal Karez Sadiq in 1997 was Rs.85/- in 1998 at Rs.190/- in 1999 at Rs.200/- in 2003 at Rs.162/- and in 2005 at Rs.515/-:. So the rate of Rs.300/- per sqft demanded by the respondent seems proper in view of the record produced by him that went unchallenged. This shows the actual market value of the adjacent land, whereas the land of the respondent was on C the front side definitely acquiring higher price than the land not lying on the front of the road.
The said document was even not considered by the Land Acquisition Collector while passing award dated 29.05.2004.
11. Admittedly , the acquired property is situated near the road which is not only important for commercial point of view but for the purpose of residential as well and the land situated near the road is always considered more valuable than the land situated at some distance from the road. The mutation entries from the year 1992-2005 produced by the respondent which fact has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector at the time of announcement of the impugned award. The Land Acquisition Collector despite being aware of the situation of the acquired land has awarded very meager amount of compensation and, as such, the amount enhanced by the learned trial Court in no case is found either exaggerated or exorbitant keeping in view the high trend of prices of landed property in the area and is maintained.
The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is strictly in accordance with the law and in consonance with the evidence available on record which call for no interference.
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, there is no violation in the instant appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
The above are reasons of our short order dated 30.10.2019.