ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2012 (hereinafter "the impugned Judgment ") passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Quetta, (hereinafter "the trial Court ") in Land Acquisition Reference No.04 of 2011 and the appellants/ respondents filed this Regular First Appeal (" RFA").
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that the Government of Balochistan required a land owned by the private land owners for its extension and improvements of the old Mastung Road Arbab Karam Khan Road to link Road Hazar Ganji situated in various Khasra of Mahal and Mouza of Halqa Urban-III Tehsil and District Quetta, whereas the property of the respondents 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 respondents/appellants duly replied.
3. After completion of the proceedings, the Land Acquisition Collector passed his Award dated 16.10.2002 and awarded the compensation to the private respondents/ land owners along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges under the provisions of the Act.
4. The private respondents/land owners were aggrieved from the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and so they 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 Additional District Judge-III, Quetta, who summoned the appellants, the appellants filed detailed written statements and out of the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether respondent has acquired petitioner's land bearing Khasra No.525/3 to 28 min 1 and 2 Ward No.9 etc Halqa Urban-1 11, Tehsil and District Quetta, after having assessed its valuation at lower rate contrary to prevailing market value construction and its situation?
2. Whether petitioners express objection on Notification No.685- 87/44(3) - RB / 2001, dated 22.04.2002. after its issuance?
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for relief claimed for?
4. 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 in the following manner: - "i. Rate of commercial land/plot situates at Raisani Road/Arbab Karam Khan Road, is fixed as Rs. 1500/- per sqft. ii. Rate of cost of construction is fixed as Rs. 500/- per sqft. iii. Rate of residential land situated at Raisani Road/Arbab Karam Khan main Road is fixed as Rs. 1000/- per sqft. iv. In addition 15% in consideration of compulsory acquisition as required under section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. v. With additional compensation of 15% per annum from the date of Notification dated 22nd April, 2002 of payment compensation as required under section 25 shall be paid to the petitioner/ objector".
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 the acquired land which shows it location houses of the respondents, other houses, shops, main injunction of Arbab Karam Khan Road, Raisani Road, Joint Road, University of Balochistan, Sariab Road are situated which shows the best location of the acquired track of land. The Land Acquisition Collector , Quetta, instead of applying its independent mind as to the determination of the fair compensation of the acquired land based his award on the average price furnished to him by Tehsil Official 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 Actors 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 evidence is produced by the responden ts/ land owners particularly the property dealers who stated in their statements that the value of the said property from Rs.1200/- per sqft to 1500/- per sqft. Even otherwise, the contention of the respondents/land owners was also supported as per letter dated 29.04.2006 of the appellant No.1 sent to Member Board of Revenue (Ex.R W/3) duly supported by the report of Tehsildar dated 26.04.2009 (Ex.R W/4) shows the material rate of the commercial area as Rs.1500/-. So through such evidence it could be concluded safely that compensation assessed by appellant No.1 was on the lower side and was not based at the actual market rate.
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 and location nearby properties of the property in question has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector at the D 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 merit in the instant appeal, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.