MUHAMMAD FAHEEM WALL, J.- This Regular First Appeal has been brought against judgment of the learned Referee Court/Additional District Judge-II, Haripur dated 12.09.2017, whereby the learned Court while partially allowing the objection petition filed by the respondent, held him entitled to receive compensation at the enhanced rates, as per one year average Ex OW-3/4.
2. Landed property of the respondent/ objector, comprised in different Khasra numbers of Mauza Sirya, Haripur had been acquired by the appellants for Pak-China Economic Zone, through Award No. 105 dated 23.11.2010. For enhancement of rates of compensation, respondent/objector approached learned Referee Judge/Additional District Judge-II, I-Iaripur through objection petition which was contested by the appellants. After recording pro and contra evidence, learned Referee Court partially allowed objection petition of the respondents vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017 and held them entitled to receive compensation at the following rates; S. No.Kind of LandRate Per Marla (Rs.)Rate Per Kanal (Rs.)
1. Bagh, Chari Nehri, & Chari28,942/-5,78,840/
2. Kund 10,366/- 2,06,720/ 3.Maira Nehri & Maira8269/- 1,65,380/
4. Rakkar 4134/- 82,680/
5. Un-Cultivated 2067/- 41,340/- Feeling aggrieved of the rates fixed by the learned Referee Court, the appellants approached this Court through appeal in hand with the prayer: "On acceptance of the appeal of the appellants, the judgment and decree of the Referee Judge/Lower Court be set-aside and objection petition may be dismissed with heavy cost."
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveals that appellants are aggrieved of judgment dated 12.09.2017 of the Referee Court Haripur, whereby amount of compensation has been enhanced. The Land Acquisition Collector, while determining the compensation of the acquired land, had relied on one year average Ex PW-2/6. Said one-year average pertain to the period w.e.f 20.07.2007 to 20.07.2008.
No doubt notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued in the instant case on 20.06.2008, but the record also reveals that before announcement of Award, two corrigendum notifications dated 19.03.2010 (Ex OW-2/2) and dated 17.05.2010 (Ex OW-2/3) were issued. The one- year average pertaining to the year 2007-2008, relied upon by the Collector was thus not justified, because the prices of the land may have enhanced during the intervening period. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that for the purpose of determining compensation of the acquired land, its market value, at the date of taking its possession should be taken into consideration. It has remained a debatable question as to whether the compensation of the acquired land may be determined from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 or in case the corrigendum notification has been issued, the date of issuance of corrigendum notification would be taken into account, while determining market value. Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of "Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector and another Vs. Begun Aziza" reported as 2014 SCMR 75, held that; "There is yet another aspect of the matter which may have a bearing on the value of the property.
The notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 17.04.1981; two corrigenda were issued on 06.10.1982; notification under section 5 was published on 20.07.1983; the declaration under section 6 was published on 1-2-1984 and the award was announced on 28-3-1985. Thus it took four years for appellants to complete the acquisition proceedings. The prices may have escalated during this period and this escalation has to be kept in view while assessing the potential value of the land. This is in line with the law laid down by this Court in Province of Sindh v. Ramzan (PLD 2004 SC 512), Abdul Majeed etc. v. Muhammad Subhan etc. (1990 SCMR 1245 at 1255) and Pakistan Burma Shell Limited v. Province of NW.F.P. etc. (1993 SCMR 1700)."
Similarly, in the case of "Central government of Pakistan Vs. Sardar Fakhar-e-Alam and another"
(1985 CLC Peshawar 2228), this Court held that; "Before we proceed further to evaluate the evidence which was brought on record before the learned Acquisition Judge on the basis of which he determined the compensation to be paid to the respondent for his land, we would like to record our finding on the much debated question as to which would be the material date for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act in accordance with the measure laid down in the first clause to subsection ( I ) of section 23 of the Act. As already mentioned, two notifications were issued under section 4 of the Act by the Collector of the District, one on the 14th June, 1981 wherein many Khasra numbers, including Khasras Nos. 44 and 45 measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marlas belonging to the respondent, were mentioned which were likely to be acquired by Government for the public purpose, and the other (by way of corrigendum) on the 29th March, 1982 wherein the Khasra numbers already notified and the additional area likely to be needed, including the land measuring 4 Kanals 1 marla represented by Khasra Nos. 42 and 43 belonging to the respondent, were mentioned. This Corrigendum, which was a full-fledged notification issued under section 4 of the Act, is available at pages 18-19 of the record of the Acquisition Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the material date for the purpose of determining the compensation would be the 14th June, 1981 on which date the first notification was issued, but the learned counsel for the respondent, as already mentioned, argued that this date would be the 29th March, 1982 on which date the corrigendum was issued. We are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent because what was expressed by the Collector of the District to be a Corrigendum was in fact a notification, complete by itself issued under section 4 of the Act. It contained details of all the Khasra numbers, including those earlier notified, which were needed by Government to be acquired for a public purpose. It, being complete and self-contained, had, in fact, superseded the first notification issued on the 14th June, 1981. The material date for the purpose of determining the compensation to be awarded for the acquired land was, therefore, the 29th March, 1982."
It was also held by this Court in the case of "Miangul Badshah and 7 others Vs. LandAcquisition Collector, Deputy Commissioner, Swat and 5 others" (2012 CLC Peshawar 1212), that provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not the sole criteria for fixation of market value of the acquired land and when there was delay of two to three years in notification under Section 4 and announcement of Award, then the factors of escalation in price and future potentials should also be kept in mind while assessing compensation. Relevant findings are reproduced hereunder for ready reference; "We have to see as to what should be the market value of the acquired property on the strength of available record irrespective of the fact as to whether the amended provisions of section 23 of the Act ibid were extended to the. PATA area or not. The adherence of the trial Court to the provisions of section 23 of the Act ibid for fixation of compensation on the basis of market value prevailing one year prior to publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Act ibid, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, cannot be held to be lawful and justified. Provisions of section 23 (1) of the Act can never be held as the sole criteria for fixation of market value. The factor of potential and future value of the acquired land has also to be kept in mind while determining the compensation of the acquired property. Escalation of prices between the period of publication of notification under section 4 and the announcement of award is yet another aspect of the case.
Delay of two or three years between two dates has been considered as a factor for enhancing the compensation whereas in the case in hand, there is a delay of twelve years plus in between the date of publication of notification under section 4 and announcement of award. Even the inflationary trend and depreciation in the currency of the country between the two dates cannot be ignored. The apex Court in the case of Mst. lqbal Begum and others held that the gold be given for gold and not copper for gold."
Thus it is clear that the market value of the acquired land should be assessed from the date, when the acquisition process is actually carried out, either by way of issuing corrigendum notification or by way of taking possession of the property, followed by announcement of award, in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
5. In the instant case, the land of the respondents has been acquired for construction of Pak-China Economic Zone. In the Award, the collector assessed compensation of the acquired land as per one year average price of the land prevailing at the time when first notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued, while the learned Referee Court rightly taken into consideration the fact that after issuance of corrigendum notification, first notification under Section 4 of the Act, lost its worth and the corrigendum notification was the notification under Section 4 for all intents and purposes.
6. In this case, the corrigendum notification was issued on 19.03.2010 and 17.05.2010. So price of land in the case in hand for the purpose of compensation has rightly been fixed as per average Ex OW- 3/4 from 23.11.2009 to 24.11.2010. Learned Referee Court has rightly taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case, while deciding objection petition of the respondent and passed a balanced judgment, to which no exception could be taken. No illegality, irregularity or mis-reading and non-reading of evidence could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgment of learned Referee Court.
7. For what has been discussed above, appeal in hand is found divested of merits and therefore, stands dismissed accordingly.