' The Regular First Appeals, bearing Nos,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 2-11-1983. 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 8-5-1986 by fixing compensation at the rate of Rs,400 per Marla. Feeling dissatisfied with this assessment, the respondents submitted 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 marla. 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 provisions of sections 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 Marla, by rendering award in each reference. Feeling aggrieved with this decision, the Province of Punjab had filed aforenoted R.F.As.
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 Exhs. R/1, R/2, R/3 and R/4,. Exhs. R/1 & R/2 are {{URDU TEXT}} ' Exhs.R/3 and R/4 are the documents of like nature relating to period from 1-1-1984 to 31-12-1984 and 1-1-1985 to 31-12-1985, respectively. According to Exh.R/1 and R/2 the price of the land situated in Mauza Rajanpur outside Municipal Limits was Rs, 128.16 per Marla. Similarly according to Exh.R/3 is Rs,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 of 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 dealing 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 v. 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 for the purpose for which the property is compulsorily acquired.
' The same principle was followed in R.B. Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State of India (1925 PC 91). This principle was again reaffirmed in Atmaram Ghadgay v. Collector of Nagpur (AIR 1929 P.C. 92), Vyrincheria Narayana Gajapatriaju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam (AIR 1939 P.C. 98).
Secretary of State v. Naresh Chandra Bose (AIR 1926 Cal. 1000), Collector of Cingleput District Saida v. Kadir Mohideeen Sahib (AIR 1926 Mad. 732), Secretary of State v. Chuni Lal and others (AIR 1931 Lah. 207), Sheikh Manzoor Hussain v. The Multan Improvement Trust Multan and another (PLD 1972 Lah. 225) and Malik Abdul Qayyum etc. v. Punjab Province etc. (PLD 1979 Lah. 853)
7. It will be appropriate to examine the case of Fazalur Rahman and others v. 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 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 the property intended to be acquired, because even while deciding cases involving question of life and death, the Courts rely on oral testimony alone and do not insist on the production of documentary evidence. The credibility of such witnesses would, however, have to be kept in mind and it would be for the Court in each case to determine the weight to be attached to their testimony. It would be useful, and ever necessary, to examine such witnesses while determining the market price of the land in question, because of the prevalent tendency that in order to save money on the purchase of stamp papers and to avoid the imposition of heavy Gain Tax levied on sale of property, people declare or show a much smaller amount at the price of the land purchased by them than the price actually paid. The `previous sales' of the land cannot, therefore, be always taken to be an accurate measure for determining the price of the land intended to be acquired.
' This rule was reiterated in Sub. Haider Zaman and others v. Govt. Of N.-W.F.P. And others (1987 SCMR 465) and Malik Aman and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (PLD 1988 SC 32).
8. In Nawabzada Muhammad Saeed Khan v. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Multan (1990 MLD 1232), after the survey of the law and precedents, the following principles were enunciated for the purposes of assessm ent of market value of land under the Act
(1) The market value or market price means the price property would fetch in the market. The price will be the highest price willing buyer A would pay and a willing seller would accept both being fully informed and the property being exposed for a reasonable period of time.
(2) The market value may be different from the price a property can actually be sold at a given time. The market value is that price which might be expected to bring if offered for sale in a fair market.
(3) In assessing the compensation the potential value i,e, the benefits, advantages arising from the present use and future use are to be taken into consideration.
(4) The inflationary trends and depreciation in currency of the country between the date of acquisition under Section 4 of the Act and the date of award also should not be totally ignored and be taken into consideration.
9. Guided by these principles, we herein proceed to examine the evidence produced by the parties.
The common features of these appeals are that the owners appeared in the witness-box and stated to the effect that the land acquired was close to Rajanpur City that it was adjacent to Siraj Colony on eastern side, and Dubai Colony in western side. Further on western side there was Shah Faisal Colony, Al-Siddique Colony, Khalilabad Colony and on the same side was Arain Rice Mills and Cotton Factory. At the relevant time number of other residential colonies were going into existence. Close to this land, was situated the Govt. Degree College for Boys and a Satellite Town was also near this land. It was stated that the land at the relevant time was being used for residential as well as commercial purposes. The respondents tendered into evidence Exh.A/1 copy of Khasragirdawri relating to Rabi & Kharif, 1984, ExhA/2 copy of Award, Exh.A/3 copy of Aks Parcha, ExhA/4 is copy of Khasra Girdawari of Canal Department, ExhA/5 is copy of approved Yardstick relating to year 1982-83 and Exh.A/6 is copy of Ausat Bai relating to year, ExhA/7 to A/14 are copies of different sale-deeds, which relate to land measuring 1 Marla, 1 Marla, 2 Marlas, 2 Marlas, 1 Marla, 1 Marla, 1 Marla and 1 Marla, respectively. The land was sold at the rate of Rs, 5,000 per marla. Another document of decisive significance is "Aks Shajra Parcha" of Mauza Rajanpur-I, Tehsil and District Rajanpur which clearly shows the location and the nature of the land. The land is situated near Colony Kotla Bakhoo and Mat-lower Abadi which lies on both sides of Aqilpur Road. It is close to District Jail and also to a Rice Factory. From this evidence noted above it is quite clear that the land had ceased its agricultural character and was being used for residential as well as the commercial and industrial purposes.
10. Having determined the nature of the land, it is quite clear from the perusal of documents ExhA/1 to A/14 that the land was being sold at the relevant time for commercial as well as residential purposes and the market value of the land was Rs, 5,000 per Marla. The reference Court assessed the compensation on the basis of entry No,4 of ExhA/5, which was an approved yardstick for assessm ent and collection of Capital Gain Tax in Rajanpur Rating Area. In our considered opinion this assessm ent was not fair. The owners were entitled to compensation at highest side. In view of the case law noted above they are also entitled to receive compensation after taking into consideration, the depreciation of the currency and inflationary trends, but we are not able to proceed further in this matter, as neither any cross objection nor any appeal was filed by the owners against award.
' In view of foregoing reasons, we have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector is not open to interference. These R.FAs fail and are dismissed as such. The appellants shall bear the costs of the proceedings throughout and the respondent-owners shall be entitled to 15% compulsory charges alongwith the benefits under sections 28 and 34 of the Act.