' During the process of acquiring land in connection with Tarbela Dam Project from village Dari, Tehsil Haripur, District Abbottabad, the Land Acquisition Collector drew an Award No,9 dated 8th December, 1972.
2. Not contended therewith, the appellants moved an objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 which was duly forwarded to the learned Additional Distt.
Judge/Acquisition Judge, Haripur, under section 19 (ibid), for adjudication.
3. The objection was contested by the Collector Acquisition and the pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:
(1) Whether property in Khasra No,715 measuring 20 kanals 19 marlas is the ownership of the objectors and they are entitled to its compensation and the same has wrongly been assessed as shamilat?
(2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
(3) Whether the objectors have a cause of action?
(4) Relief.
Additional Issue
(1) Whether the objectors have not sought any relief against the respondents, if so, what effect?
4. After recording such evidence as was produced by the parties in support of their pleadings, the learned Reference Judge, finding all the issues against the appellants, dismissed the objection petition vide his judgment dated 16th February, 1980. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard Haji Ghulam Basit, Advocate learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Mohammad Aslam Khan Asstt. Advocate-General as also Mr. Aurangzeb Khan Advocate learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record of the case with their valuable assistance.
6. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellants conceded that the suit land is `shamilat deh' and the appellant does not claim its ownership. He then submitted that the land measuring 20 kanals 19 marlas, out of total land measuring 164 kanals bearing Khasra number 715, is proved to be in possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants who have made improvements therein which merited not only its re-classification for the purpose of payment of compensation but also its payment to the appellants and that too at enhanced rates. He, therefore, maintained that the findings of the learned Reference Judge on issues Nos.1 and 3 are not tenable. He assailed the findings on issue No,2 as also the additional issue on the ground that the respondents, or the persons whom the learned Reference Judge deemed necessary to be impleaded as party, do not have any clash of interest with the appellants.
7. As against this the learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the judgment of the learned Reference Judge, argued that the finding on issues 1 and 3 are well founded and decision on issue No,2 is in conformity with the factual aspect of the case in that certain persons who were deemed by the learned Reference Judge as necessary parties to the proceedings, for a just decision of the case, are not impleaded by the appellants. It is also contended that any change in the kind of land, as a consequence of entries recorded in Khasra Girdawari Ex.OW 2/2, would be of no avail to the appellants inasmuch as the alleged improvements in the land have seemingly occurred in 1971 while the land was acquired in 1967.
8. I have given my serious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case with considerable degree of care.
9. The scope of controversy, in my view, has narrowed down to the question, and thereupon hinges the ultimate fate of this case, as to whether the appellants can claim compensation for the improvements which have been effected in the land after its acquisition, or, speaking more precisely, after the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
10. Undisputedly the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring the land in village Dari, including the suit land, was issued on 3rd May, 1967. It is however, a matter of record, as is evident from Khasra Girdawari Ex.OW 2/2, that the suit land remained banjar-qadeem and soka till Kharif 1970. It was in Rabi 1971 that a change of classification of a part of the land seems to have taken place and recorded as such in Khasra Girdawari of the year Ex.OW 2/2.
11. It is now well settled that assessme nt of compensation, to be paid to the land-owners for the land acquired, is based on the condition and the market value thereof obtaining before the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In other words the material date, for the purpose of determining compensation in respect of such land, would be the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. It is in this context that reliance is generally placed on one yearly average of the sale price of land sold within or in proximity of the land acquired before the date of notification. I draw strength in this regard from a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Government of Pakistan v. Sikandar Khan etc. Reported in PLD 1987 Peshawar 68 wherein it is held:-- "The upshot of the above discussion is that on the view of the matter that we take, we hold that the material date for the purpose of compensation in respect of the acquired land would be the date of the notification issued under section 4 of the Act in each of these cases "
12. In this view of matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the compensation in respect of the land in question on the basis of its improved condition, which is later in time than the date of notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, cannot be made a valid criterion for determining the rate thereof nor can it be claimed by the appellants under settled principle of law.
13. With this answer to the question formulated in para 9 supra, other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants need hardly any discussion for the decision of this appeal.
14. Consequently, finding this appeal devoid of any merits, I hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs.