MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, CJ. The appellant being dissatisfied from the compensation assessed by the respondents-acquiring agency reflecting from Award, filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Court of competent jurisdiction and after recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Referee Court while deciding issue No.4 enhanced the compensation from Rs.100,000/- to Rs.150,000/- per marla.
Both the parties: the appellant/owner and the acquiring agency/Government filed appeals bearing R.F.A.
Nos.13860/2019 and 22896/2019, respectively . Obviously the Government has challenged the enhancement whereas the appellant/owner has prayed for satisfaction of his total claim of Rs.400,000/- per marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest, which was not accepted and only Rs.50,000/- were enhanced. Through this single judgment, the said two appeals are being decided together .
2. I have heard the learned counsels for the appellant, the learned Additional Advocate General and examined record of the case.
3. It is noticed that the learned Referee Court for determining the compensation concluded the category of appellant's land as 'residential' and enhanced the compensation accordingly ignoring all the relevant documentary evidence showing/establishing its use as 'commercial'. Another important document, i.e. the report of the Sub- Committee, containing the price of the land situated in Kahna village adjacent to the appellant's land at the rate of Rs.300,000/- per marla considering it as 'commercial' was also ignored.
4. It is not denied by the respondents-ac quiring agency that the portion of land of appellant's running factory was acquired for construction of service road. Hence, it is established from the record that land of existing running factory was seized considering it reside ntial' on the basis of revenue record for the purpose of construction of service road, which is contrary not only to the existing status of the land but also inconsistent with the settled principles of law enunciated by honourable Supreme Court. It is settled law that not only the revenue record be considered determining the category of the land but its use at the acquiring time would also be relevant to examine its potentiality . Learned Referee/trial Court, although, while enhancing the rate relied upon the Price Assessment Chart prepared by the Sub-Committee but category of the land was mistakenly declared residential' merely on the basis of revenue record and granted the compensation accordingly as assessed by the Sub-Committee for Kahna village; hence, it is held that the learned Referee Court has committed material illegality and irregularity while declaring the appellant's land as residential' and assessing the price accordingly . It is well settled law that use of land at the time of acquisition shall also be considered a factor to determine its status/classification and revenue record cannot be the exclusive criteria to determine its value and potential, whereas in this case classification of land in dispute was determined on the basis of the revenue record. It is also noticed that adjoining land was classified as commercial' and compensation was assessed accordingly . Another aspect is that the potential of the land has also been ignored as undeniably many factories in running position were also existing adjacent to the appellant's factory , which was acquired by the respondents. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Referee Court, as the same are inconsonance 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 as under:- "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 transactio n 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 emphasized)
5. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the compensation is granted to the appellant in terms of the price assessed by the Sub-Committee for the commercial land as Rs.300,000/- per marla. The other appeal bearing R.F.A. No.22896/2019, in consequence of acceptance of R.F.A. No.13860/2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs.