MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.06.2013, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby a Reference, filed by Abdul Rasheed -respondent No.1 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was accepted and the said respondent was held entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per marla along with 15% compulsory charges and 8% compound interest with effect from the date of taking possession of the land till its realization thereof.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined record of the case with their able assistance.
3. The sole ground urged by learned counsel for appellant to seek declaration, enhancement in compensation, unjustified is lacking of evidence relevant to the increased compensation as such. It has been reiterated that the learned referee Court had misread and misconstrued the evidence available on record; and thereby travelled beyond its jurisdiction while granting enhancement in the rate thereof so fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector .
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
5. It is manifestly clear from the record that the appellant had already purchased a major portion of land in the relevant `Mouza' at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per Marla and the award of compensation, so notified by the appellant, has been made available on record, which is enough/suf ficient to ascertain entitlement of the respondent No.1's, compensation of the land in question at the identical price, being in the similar use and location in terms of section 23 of the Act ibid. The act of awarding compensation at a lesser rate by the appellant was uncalled-for particularly when tangible evidence of irrefutable character lent countenance to the version of said respondent. Thus, the treatment meted out to the respondent No.1 by the appellant, so as to deprive him of his legitimate right, is seemingly not tenable.
The award of compensation at a rate lower than ones of alike character in the same `Mouza', cannot be justified nor the grouse so agitated by the appellant can be sustained. Hence, it is held that assertion of the appellant as to omission for adducing relevant evidence for enhanced rate of compensation carries no force.
6. We are unable to agree with the premise so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the already awarded afore-mentioned compensation for the lands in similar use and located in the same vicinity . Since it was unequivocally established on the record that the appellant had already purchased the land adjacent to that of the respondent No.1, at the rate of Rs.12 ,500/- per marla, in the same `Mouza', it is held that lesser price of the land of respondent No.1 so determined by the acquiring agency , in a perfunctory manner , while ignoring the prevalent price of the land at the relevant time, was a superfluous effort in derogation to the settled principles of law, and resulted into frustrating the precious rights of respondent No.1/owner of the land; hence the same was befittingly rectified by the learned referee Court.
7. The learned trial Court, after referring to all the evidence and making comparison of several mutations of sale placed on record by respondent No.1 (Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-10), and having due regard to the award of compensation for the remaining land of the `Mouza', arrived at a just conclusion that the potential value of land determined by the appellant was not proper; and therefore, aptly enhanced it according to prevailing market price of the land. We do not find any misreading, non-reading, illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned before us.
8. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, we are not persuaded to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Referee Court, which are in consonance with the law laid down by apex Court in a case reported as Land Acquisition Collector , BOR Punjab vs. Syed Haroon Iftikhar and others (2014 SCMR 659) and Land Acquisition Collector , G.S.C., N.T.D.C., (WAPDA), Lahore and another vs. Mst. Surraya Mehmood Jan ( 2015 SCMR 28 ). In the latter landmark judgment, it has been held:- "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 arm's 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." (underline supplied)
Resultantly , this appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No order as to costs.