' MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.-This Regular First Appeal by Mir Zaman etc. Against Collector Land Acquisition, Nowshera and Regular First Appeal No,67 of 1987 by Collector Land Acquisition, Nowshera against Mir Zaman etc. Having been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, dated 25-3-1987 are proposed to be disposed of by this single judgment.
2. The facts of the litigation which have given arise to these two regular first appeals shortly stated are that the Inspector-General of Prisons, N.-W.F J, acquired under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) (hereinafter called the Act) on 28-10-1975, land of Mir Zaman etc. In Regular First Appeal No,50 of 1987 comprised of various Khasra numbers described in the Award of the Collector Land Acquisition, Nowshera, appellant in R.F A. No,67 of 1987.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his Award No,l60-164/OK dated - 11-1977 assessed Shah Nehri classification of land at Rs,1830.80 per Kanal; that of Barrani and Banjar Qadim each at Rs,2,209.20 per Kanal while that of Ghair Mumkin at Rs,767.80 per Kanal.
4. The appellants took the matter to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar under section 18 of the Act who vide his judgment and decree dated 25- 3-1987 enhanced compensation of all the four classifications of land at the flat rate of Rs,3,320 per Kanal on the consideration of the average prices worked out for the period before and after the publication of notification under section 4 of the Act. Compensation for brick-kiln with quarters for labourers was assessed at Rs,82,024 by the Collector Land Acquisition in pursuance of the report of the Executive Engineer (B&R) Division, Nowshera but did not allow any compensation for loss of earnings and profits during which the Industrial concern (the Brick-Kiln) remained disturbed. The learned Referee Judge awarded Rs,15,000 as compensation on the last-mentioned score.
5. The parties have separately come up in appeal to challenge the judgment and decree aforesaid.
6. Mr. Abdul Bari Khan, learned counsel for the appellants contends that while awarding compensation the learned Referee Judge has ignored the location of the land acquired which has potential due to its situation on G.T. Road as compared to the land of the same classification being far-off from that in dispute. According to him, consideration should be had to all the potential uses to which the land can be put, as well as the advantages, present or future, which the land possesses in the hands of the owners. Reference in this context was made to Mst. Khatu and others v. Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Thatta PLD 1977 Kar. 203 and it was submitted that market value of the disputed land should have been assessed higher because it was situated in the Industrial Area.
7. The main grievance of the learned Additional Advocate-General, on the contrary, is that the learned Senior Civil Judge has in upsetting the finding of the Collector, erred by relying on the prices worked out for the period before and after the notification. What the learned Additional Advocate-General maintained was that the learned Referee Judge has erred in placing reliance on the transactions subsequent to the notification issued under section 4 of the Act. He also argued that land in dispute being of Banjar and waste classification should not have been assessed at higher price than that of the Collector Land Acquisition who had taken into consideration all these aspects and correctly valued it.
8. Contentions raised on behalf of both the parties are without any substance. The learned Referee Judge did notice the location of the land for the purpose of ascertaining its potential and, therefore, took into consideration the prices of the lands in neighbourhood before and after the notification under section 4 of the Act. The criteria adopted by the learned Referee Judge is in accord with that laid down in Jogendra Nath Chatteijee and others v. State of West Bengal AIR 1971 Cal. 458 which has been approved by us in R.F A. No,63 of 1990 titled Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Professor Danishmand Khan and another, decided on 10-3-1991.
9. In a recent case of Malik Aman and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others PLD 1988 SC 32 their Lordships had the occasion to observe that factors for determination of the market value of the land proposed to be acquired are not restricted only to the time of issuance of the notification under section 4 of the*Act or any period prior to it but can also relate to the period in future (i.e, the period after the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act). It was, therefore, propounded that the potential value of land i.e, the use to which it can be put in future has in a large number of cases been held to be a relevant factor.
10. A It is exactly this consideration that weighed with the learned Referee Judge and rightly so that he relied upon the schedules of average price for the periods before and after the notification under section 4 of the Act and awarded the compensation accordingly.
11. In the circumstances of this case, we would uphold the findings of the leamed trial Judge and dismiss both the appeals leaving the parties to bear their own costs.