MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.- The Regular First Appeals, bearing No.39,40, 41, 42, and 43, all of 1989, are by the Province of Punjab expropriator. Respondents are expropriated-owners. These appeals arise out of acquisition proceedings and involve examination of common questions of law and facts.
Hence are being disposed of by a single judgment.
2. The common features of these appeals are that by means of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), 416 kanals 15 marlas situated in the Revenue estate of Rajanpur-I, was acquired for the purposes of construction of District complex of newly created district of Rajanpur. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the extraordinary gazette of Govt, of Punjab on 2.11.83. The possession of the land was taken under a notification under Section 17(4) of the Act published in the Gazette on 3.2.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector rendered award on 8.5.86 by, fixing compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per maria.
Feeling dissatisfied with this assessment, the respondents sub-mitted separate applications claiming reference under section 18 of the Act. It was alleged therein that the market-price of the land was not less than 3,500/- per maria. The District Collector sent the reference to the Reference Court.
3. The references were contested. The appellants took up the plea that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was just and in accordance with the provision of Section 23 and 24 of the Act. Both the parties led evidence. On the consideration of the evidence, adduced by both the parties, the Referee-Court accepted the applications, and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 2,000/- per maria, by rendering award in each reference. Feeling aggrieved with this decision, the Province of Punjab had filed afor-enoted R.FAs.
4. The learned Addl. Advocate General in support of these appeals contended that the learned Courts below had fallen into errors of law by not taking into consideration the Exh. R/l, R/2, R/3, & R/4,. Ex. R/l & R/2 are ((Urdu Words Paragraph))
Fx.R/3 and R/4 are the document of like nature, relating to period from 1.1.84 to 91.12.84 and 1.1.85 to 31.12.85, respectively. According to Ex.R/1 and R/2 the price of the land situated in Mauza Rajanpur outside Municipal Limits was Rs. 128.16 per maria. Similarly according to Ex.R/3 is R. 76.36 and R/4 is Rs. 47.75. It was urged that these documents were of decisive significance and were illegally excluded from consideration. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the acquired land was situated outside the limits of Municipal Committee; that it was an agricultural land and so could not be assessed as urban immovable property for the purposes of compensation under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, supported the impugned award. It was contended that the acquired land was being used for the purpose of residential and commercial purposes; that it was situated. By the side of Aqilpur Road and was adjunct to Rajanpur City. According to the learned counsel the award made by the Reference Court was just and in accordance with the principles embodied in Sections 23 and 24 ibid.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties at considerable length and gone through the relevant record with the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties. Before we proceed to determine the contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant law dealig with the assessment of compensation. The principles governing the compensation are embodied in Sections 23 and 24 ibid. From the examination of these sections, it is clear that owner is entitled to receive the market value of the land. The 'market-value' is not defined anywhere in the Act. These words came for examination before the Privy Council as back as in 1917 in the case of Fraser Vs. City of Freservile (LR (1917) Act 194) that:- It is the value to the seller of the property in its actual condition at the time of expropriation with all its existing advantages and with all its possibilities, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme f6r the purpose for which the property is compulsorily acquired.
The same principle was followed in R.B. Narsingh Das- Vs. Secretary of State of India (1925 P.C. 91).
This principle was again reaffirmed in Atmaram Ghadgay Vs. Collector of Nagpur (AIR 1929 P.C. 92), Vyrincherla Narayana Gajapatriaju Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam (AIR 1939 P.C. 98), Secretary of State Vs. Naresh Chandra Bose (AIR 1926 Cal. 1000) Collector of Cingleput District Saida Vs. Kadir Mohideen Sahib (AIR 1926 Mad. 732), Secretary of State Vs. Chuni Lai and others (AIR 1931 Lah. 207) Sheikh Manzoor Hussain Vs. The Multan Improvement Trust Multan and another (PLD 1972 Lah. 225) and Malik Abdul Qayyum etc. Vs. Punjab Province etc. (PLD 1979 Lah. 853)
7. It will be appropriate to examine the Fazalur Rahman and others Vs. General Manager. SID. B and another (PLD 1986 SC 158). In this case the circumstances of future use of property and effect of devaluation of currency and inflatory trends were examined. The relevant passage from the judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain (as he then was) is noted with advantage: "I would, therefore, like to emphasize that while determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the past sales' would not be taken into account -but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determined by examining (if necessary as a ' Court witness) local property dealers or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. In the appropriate case there Should be no compunction even on relying upon the oral testimony with respect to the market value of