' This judgment shall dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos.12, 18 and 19 of 1993 as all directed against judgment/decree of the Acquisition Judge/Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra dated 26-9-1992 arising out of the same award, whereby he while accepting the objection petitions of the objectors-respondents, enhanced the compensations of their landed property.
3. By award No,44 dated 6-3-1985 an area of 496 Kanals in Village Jabba, Tehsil and District Mansehra was acquired for the improvement of Livestock Farm, Jabba at Mansehra which included the land of the objectors-respondents. The objectors-respondents were not satisfied with the assessm ent of the compensation determined in the award, therefore, they approached the learned Acquisition Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference of their claim as contained in the objection petition to Referee Judge for adjudication. In the said objection petition they objected to the rate of compensation and prayed that the same may be enhanced.
The learned Acquisition Judge vide his judgment/decree dated 26-9-1992 enhanced rate of landed property as under:-- {{TABLE}} Hotar/Bari Rs,22,000 per Kanal Rakkar/Kalsi 10,000 " "
Banna Rakh 8,000 Baila Mera 12,000 " " {{TABLE}} ' The Government of N.-W.F.P. Being dissatisfied with the above judgment/decree of the learned Referee Judge has preferred this appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
4. Under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the first matter which has to be taken into consideration for determination of compensation of land is its market value as on the date of publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Act, hence it essentially implies the market value as the value of the property acquired. The function of the assessing authority under section 23 of the Act was to find out the market value of the property to be acquired and should not have fixed it by hypothecation. It is well-settled that an owner is entitled to get the compensation of his property which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The usual methods which are adopted for the determination of market value of the property acquired are (i) Opinion of the valuators/experts; (ii) price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of similar properties within its close proximity, and (iii) rents and profits of the property received shortly before the acquisition. The mode of valuation is not governed by any uniform rule but either of the above or more than one may be adoptped by the Collector or the Court having regard to the matter of the property. The Collector himself observed in the award that the prices of the land according to `Yaksala' did not reflect fair value, hence he in view of the objections of the owners, their dislocation from their properties and commercial value of the land fixed the prices as per table given below:- {{TABLE}] As per `Yaksala'
(i) Hoter/Bari Rs,3,032/- per Kanal to As per award. 6000 per Kanal.
Bela/Haira 1,516/- " 3500 "
Rakkar/Kalsi 1137/- " 2500
(iv) Banna/Dhaka Rakh 379/- 1000 {{TABLE}} ' The Collector raised the prices of `Yaksala' to almost double in case of Hoter/Bari types of land while in other types given at Serial Nos.2 to 4 the prices were increased to more than double and in doing so no particular criteria or formula was followed but the compensation was determined whimsically on hypothecation and discarded the one year average prices of the surrounding villages for no convincing reasons. In such state of affairs the method adopted by the Referee Court to get the land evaluated in view of its potential value through the Local Commissioners was completely justifiable and appropriate. The learned Court in the first instance appointed Mr. Muhammad Arif Mashadi, Advocate, as Local Commissioner to ascertain the potential value of the land after local investigation. He submitted his report on 9-12-1991 but the same was set aside on the ground that the Government Pleader and the respondents therein were not properly informed by the Local Commissioner prior to his local investigation, thus the proceedings carried on by him in their absence were not proper. Therefore Mr. Adam Khan Jadoon, Advocate was assigned the same duty with the direction to proceed to the spot after giving notice in writing to the parties and their counsel and then conduct the local investigation for ascertaining potential value of the disputed property for the purpose of market value of the same. In compliance, the Local Commissioner after duly informing the parties, inspected the site and carried on the proceedings in presence of the plaintiffs, Patwari Halqa, Assistant Director Jabba Sheep Farm, Wool Analyst Livestock, Jabba and others. He submitted his report on 13-5-1992, to which the objections of, the parties were invited for 1-6-1992, on which date the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents (appellants herein) submitted in writing that they have no objection to the report of the Local Commissioner, while the owners objected to the report which, however, were withdrawn vide their application dated 22-6-1992. Consequently the learned Court confirmed the report on 22-6-1992 and the owners were held entitled to get the compensation as per report of Local Commissioner 'vide impugned judgment. Once the appellants have conceded to the report of the Local Commissioner through Presentation, which has been acted upon hence they are estopped to raise any objection to it at a later stage. They cannot be allowed to approabate and reprobate by accepting the report at one time which culminated into a rule of the Court and objecting to it at a much later stage and that too before a different Court and in a different recourse. A party cannot be permitted to take two inconsistent positions in the same matter at different stages and is estopped from appealing against a judgment/decree which is based on the terms which have already been accepted by them in the lower Court.
' In view of the above, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with costs.