' MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---This Regular First Appeal by the Collector Land Acquisition, Peshawar and Military Estate Officer, Peshawar, and Regular First Appeal No, 55 of 1991 by Rookhan and others, land owners are directed against the common judgment dated 14-4-1991 passed by Malik Mujatba Ahmed, the then learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, raising the compensation for the lands owned by Rookhan and others from a sum of Rs,994.94 per marla to Rs,2,291. Per marla. He further held the owners "entitled to 15% compulsory charges and interest at 10% on enhanced rate from the notification under section 4 till payment." The Collector Land Acquisition was aggrieved of the order of enhancement of the amount of compensation while Rookhan etc., the owners of the land acquired felt dissatisfied by the insufficiency of the enhanced amount.
2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that 38 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land situate in the revenue estate of Tehkal Payan along with some other land belonging to some other owners was acquired for the public purpose of Construction of Warrant Officers Colony;. Peshawar, by virtue of Notification dated 11-2-1978 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) (hereinafter called as the Act). The Collector Land Acquisition, Peshawar, assessed the market price of the aforesaid land at Rs,994.94 per marla on the basis of the Schedule of Average Price for one year.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award, Rookhan and other owners filed an Objection Petition under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs,15,000 per marla. The learned Referee Judge after considering both the ocular and documentary evidence adduced before him ignored the assessment made by the Collector Land Acquisition. At the same time, the Schedule Exh.PW.1/1 of average price amounting to Rs,2,443 per marla for the period from 12-2-1977 to 12-2-1978 was also not relied upon by the learned Referee Judge holding that vit pertained to the sales of lands in the whole Village. Another Schedule Exh.PW.1/2 again for the sales made within one year before and after a year under section 4 ibid was not taken into consideration as it pertained to `Ghair Mumkin', classification of lands. However, he laid his hands on three sale mutations covering the lands which were lying adjacent to those under acquisition and as stated earlier, enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs,2,291 per marla.
3. Mr. Saadat Hussain, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the appellants in the instant appeal has taken exception to the enhancement of the amount of compensation by the learned Referee Judge and submitted that he had erred to place reliance on the mutations in respect of adjoining field No,5116 which was "quite different than that of the land acquired.' in that the land in question was not situate on the main road.
4. Mr. Abdul Bari Khan, learned counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No,55 of 1991, has reiterated the grounds of appeal before us which had been taken up in the memorandum of appeal and took the stand that the learned Additional District Judge had erroneously undervalued the land under acquisition ignoring the three averages Exh.PW.1/1, Exh.PW.1/2 and Exh.PW.1/3 and placing reliance on the three mutations covering the period of one year prior to the notification under section 4 ibid pertaining to the land lying adjacent to the one in dispute. In this context, he maintained that the sole criterion for the assessm ent of compensation for the land acquired for the public purpose was neither one yearly average price for the one year earlier than the date of notification under section 4 ibid but in appropriate cases it was incumbent to evaluate the land on the basis of its future prospects and potentialities, which was altogether ignored by the learned Referee Judge.
5. The contention of the learned Deputy Attorney-General raised in this appeal is simply untenable.
The learned trial Judge had, to our mind, no justification to ignore the three Schedules Exh.PW.1/1 to Exh.PW.1/3 of average prices much less than relying on the three mutations for the period of one year prior to the notification under section 4 of the Act. It is by now a settled law that in appropriate case even criterion of one yearly average price is not of any help and that there is no bar for resorting to appointment of Local Commissioner for inspection of the spot and evaluate the land on the consideration of the potentialities of the land. We also affirm the fading's of the learned Referee Judge that the Collector had fallen into an error to fix the compensation on the basis of one yearly average Schedule. We are, however, constrained not to affirm the criterion adopted by the learned Referee Judge viz, average price of the three mutations attested within a year prior to the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The learned trial Judge was, however, right to hold that for determining the market value, classification or nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but that is not the whole truth. An area may be `banjarqadim' or 'baron? But its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality and other benefits. (See Pakistan and another v. Rehm Dad and another (1980 CLC 574). Likewise as held in Mst. Khatu and 2 others v. Barrage Mukhtiarkar (PLD 1977 Karachi 20) that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, consideration should be had to all the potential uses to which the land can be put, as well as all the advantages present or future, which the land possesses in the hands of the owners.
6. In this view of the matter, we intended to remand the case for having the spot inspection carried out through a competent Local Commissioner for the determination of adequate compensation.
But it would have unnecessarily delayed the case further. We have, therefore, decided to refrain from resorting to that course.
7. We have taken judicial notice of the spot ourselves. A lot of housing and commercial construction had been raised in the lands adjacent to the one in dispute within 3/4 years of the acquisition of the land. The disputed property thus possessed a lot of potential for construction of housing and commercial properties. Luckily we have on the record three Schedules Exh.PW.1/1 to Exh.PW.1/3 of one yearly averages. The Schedule Exh.PW.1/3 as noticed earlier pertains to the period of one year after the notification under section 4 of the Act while the other two Schedules cover the transactions of the period of one year prior to the notification aforesaid. In order to avoid remand of the case and to award adequate compensation to the owners as well, we have taken the average of these three Schedules which comes to Rs,5,056. Per marla. The learned counsel for the parties have also raised no objection to this course as well.
8. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the amount of compensation awarded to Rookhan and other owners of the land in R.F.A. No,55 of 1991 by the Land Acquisition Collector was neither adequate nor well-founded and, therefore, we would enhance it from Rs,2,291 per marla to Rs,5,056 per marla which is fair compensation and should have been awarded to the land owners.
They would be further entitled to 15% compulsory charges. The learned Referee Judge had also awarded 10% interest on the enhanced amount which is violative of section 34 of the Act. In this case, there are two dates for two different rates of interest, namely, with effect from the date of taking over possession of land to 22-5-1983. The land owners would be entitled to compound interest at the rate of 8 per centum per annum while with effect from 23-5-1983 they will be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum till the actual payment of the enhanced amount. The instant appeal brought by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Military Estates Officer stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs while R.F.A. No,55 of 1991 filed by the land owners is partially accepted in the above terms. In the circumstances, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.