' MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.--This appeal, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act No,I of 1894 by Muhammad Sharif and others, calls in question the validity of order dated 1-9-1987 rendered by Senior Civil Judge Multan/Reference Court/finding that appellants were entitled to receive 62,100 rupees as compensation for acquired land.
2. Facts, briefly stated, giving rise to this appeal are: An area, measuring 8 'Canals 17 Marlas situated on Akbar Road, Chowk Lakkar Mandi, Multan, was acquired for the purpose of construction of a market named as "Decent Market". This happened vide Notification dated 16-3-1962 issued under section 36 of Town Improvement Act, 1936. The Land Acquisition Collector, after hearing the parties assessed its compensation as 41,161.17 rupees on 11-4-1966. Feeling dissatisfied, Mst. Daulat Bibi etc. And Muhammad Ishaq claimed References under section 18 of the Act. These References were so sent by Collector to learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan and were consolidated and contested. On the pleas of the parties, the learned Reference Court framed following issues:- "(1) What is the area of the land acquired by the defendant belonging to Mst. Daulat Bibi?
(2) Whether compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate, if so, what is the correct amount of compensation?
(3) Whether there were any constructions on the disputed property and petitioners Mst. Daulat Bibi and other have not been awarded compensation, if so, to what compensation they are entitled?
(4) Whether the petitioners accepted the award and are estopped from suing?
(5) Whether Mst. Daulat Bibi and others are entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and for which period?
(6) Relief."
3. In order to prove their Mst. Daulat Bibi and others herein appellants, examined six witnesse namely Muhammad Nawaz P.W.1, Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi P.W.2, Ab Rauf P.W.3, Abdul Khaliq P.W.4, Anwar Baig P.W.5 and Moladad Patwari 1 W.6, Muhammad Ishaq relied upon 13 witnesses namely Murad Bakhsh P.W.1, Muhammad Shafi P.W.2, Abdul Rahim P.W.3, Murad Bakhsh P.W.4, Umar Bakhsh P.W.5, Muhammad Nawaz P.W.6, Muhammad Ishaq P.W.7, Khurshid Ahmed P.W.8, Abdul Razaq P.W.9, Muhammad Ramzan P.W.10, Nazir Hussain, Secretary, Improvement Trust, Murad Ali, Revenue Officer Improvement Trust and Abdul Rahim P.W.13,. The owners/appellants tendered into evidence the certified copies of mutations Exh.P/3 to Exh.P/23 and bid sheets Exhs.P/25 to P/36. The respondents did not lead any oral evidence and tendered into evidence a Notice under section 36 Exh.R.1 and a copy of Award Exh.R.2. The learned Court got prepared quinquennial statement of sales and made it part of the record as Exh.C.1 and Exh.C.2. On the assessment of evidence so adduced by the parties, the learned Reference Court took the view that the price of land embodied in registered sale-deeds Exhs.P.1, P.2, P.21 and P.24 was a correct criterion for assessment of the compensation for acquired land. The learned Reference Court rendered the finding in following words:--
(11) Copies of the mutations Exh.P.3 to Exh.P.21 reveal that prevailing market price was much higher than the compensation awarded to the petitioners. Court also got one yearly average statement from the Patwari on 8-4-1975. The same is on file and will be read as Exh.C.3. This document also makes Exh.C.1 doubtful. Keeping in view Exh.C.1 and Exh.C.3 I can safely say that Collector was not anxious enough to reach a correct conclusion about the matter in controversy. Daulat Bibi and others produced the sale-deeds as Exh.P.2, Exh.P.22, Exh.P.23 and Exh.P.24. Site plans are also annexed with these documents. Vide Exh.P.2, Exh.P.22 and Exh.P.23 an area of 4370 yards was purchased by Daulat Bibi and others in the years 1954-1956 for Rs,53,000. I wonder why these documents which are part of public, record were not kept in view. It is a settled principle that prices of the lands in commercial areas are rising. It cannot be said or supposed by any stretch of imagination that prices of such lands are going down. It looks quite unjust to determine the price of a land at a lower level which was purchased five or six years ago at a higher rate especially where there was also no change in the location. A suggestion was put to Abdur Rahim P.W.3 that these documents were fabricated at a later stage. There is no evidence on file to lend truth to such like allegations. Exh.P.2 is the original sale-deed while Exh.P.22 to Exh.P.24 are the copies of the public record. Presumption of truth is attached to these documents unless proved otherwise. Daulat Bibi and others purchased the acquired property for Rs,53,000 six years back. Property of Muhammad Ishaq is adjacent to the same. No doubt people are in the habit of entering the inflated sale prices to circumvent the prospective pre-emption suits but the same cannot be made a ground of rejection after passage of six or seven years. I am of this considered opinion that petitioners were entitled to get the price entered in sale-deeds executed in the years 1956 and 1954 accordingly.
According to this yardstick total compensation comes to the tune of Rs,62,100. It is further explained as under:--.
' Muhammad Ishaq was entitled to the Rs,8,100. Dolat Bibi and others were entitled to get Rs,54,000.
Grand total Rs,62,100. Both the issues are decided accordingly."
4. The arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, can be conveniently summarised as below:-- ' Firstly.--That the Acquiring Department/MDA divide the acquired land into plots and sold it to different persons at the rate-varying from 51 rupees per square yard to 155 Rupees per square yard on 7-2-1967. According to the learned counsel, the bid sheets Exhs.P.25 to P.36 clearly demonstrated that the learned Reference Court had undervalued the acquired land. On the strength of the above circumstance, it was urged that the price discernible from Exhs.P.1 P.2, P.21 and P.24 be taken as a criteria for fixing the compensation of the acquired land.
' Secondly.--That Exh.P.37, Resolution of Trust dated 22-2-1967 also showed that the acquired land was inadequately valued.
' Thirdly.--That the learned Reference Court had illegally denied solatium as well as benefits under sections 28 and 34 of the Act to the appellants.
Reliance was placed on Province of Punjab through Collector, Sheikhupura and others v. Akbar All and others 1990 SCM R 899.
5. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of M.D.A. Supported the impugned Award. He stressed that the land acquired was barren at the relevant time and so assessment of its compensation made by learned Court below was unexceptionable. He however, frankly conceded that if the measure of compensation was changed, the rule laid down in Muhammad Rafique Khan v.
Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur and another 1992 CLC 1775 be applied in calculating the compensation of acquired land.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, gone through the material available on record and have given anxious consideration to rival contentions of the Parties. Before we proceed further, we find it expedient to examine the relevant law/principle pertaining to determination of compensation. Although these principles are embodied in sections 23 and 24 of the Act, yet the "market value" was not defined in the Act and this word became a center of judicial attention. In Fraser v. City of Fraser ville LR 1917 AC 194, this word came in consideration before Privy Council, wherein it was held:-- "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 of which the property is compulsorily acquired."
' This golden principle was adhered to with a remarkable consistency in R.B. Lata Narsingh Das v.
Secretary of State of India AIR 1925 PC 91; Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatriaju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam AIR 1939 PR 98; Secretary of State v. Naresh Chandra Bose AIR 1926 Cal. 1000; Collector of Chingleput District Saida v. Kadir Mohideen Sahib AIR 1926 Mad. 731, Secretary of State v.
Chuni Lai and others AIR 1931 Lah. 207; Sheikh Manzoor Hussain v. Multan Improvement Trust and another PLD 1972 Lah.225; Malik Abdul Qayyum etc. v. Punjab Province etc. PLD 1979 Lah.
853.
7. The same question came up for examination before Division Bench of this Court in Nawabzada Muhammad Saeed Khan v. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Multan and another 1990 M LD 1232. After the survey of relevant law and precedents, it was held:--
(1) The Market value of market price means the price property would fetch in the market the price will be highest price a willing buyer 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 it 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 trend 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."
8. This question was again considered by Division Bench of this Court in Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur, and another 1992 CLC 1775. It was held therein:-- "22. Having assessed the evidence of owners in the preceding paragraphs we are left with sale made through registered sale-deed dated 3-10-1973 by the Central Government in favour of Mst.
Saeeda Begum. Through this sale-deed land measuring 3 Kanals, 4/1-2 Marlas was sold in favour of vendee in consideration of Rs,25,000. According to this document, the price of the land in the locality in which the land acquired was situated, came to be Rs,62,015.50 per acre. This document of sale could not have been ignored or overlooked by the Reference Court. The approach of the Reference Court in straightaway rejecting this document without any reasonable basis, cannot be commended or approved. As such, this document was relevant and pertinent for taking into consideration for the purpose of assessment of market price of the land in dispute. The difficulty with which we are concerned is the date of the sale transaction and the extent of land. This sale was made on 3-10-1973 and pertained to 3 Kanals and 4/1-2 Marlas. Such a transaction cannot be made the basis for assessm ent of the price of a big tract of land. It is settled principle of law that when a large block of land is required to be valued, price of sale relating to small tract of land cannot be mathematically followed. Furthermore, the prices had to be taken into consideration which were prevalent at the time of acquisition notification under section 4 of the Act. For this exercise no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Method had to be worked in accordance with human experience and general knowledge. In such cases when large block of land is required to be valued, appropriate deductions had to be made in setting aside the land for carving out road, leaving open spaces for the purpose of construction of buildings. The escalation of the prices is to be taken into consideration. Normally allowance for setting aside the land for roads and open spaces is to be given by 20/25 per cent. Of the land acquired. Similarly escalation of prices is to be considered to the extent of 15 to 20%."
9. The ratio, deducible from the afore-discussion is as follows:--
(1) The market value means the price the property would fetch in the market. The price will be the highest one/a willing buyer would pay and willing seller would accept. Both being fully informed and the property being exposed for a reasonable period of time. The market value of the land has to be determined with reference to date of publication of Notification under section 4 of the Act.
The Notifications under sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant.
(2) The market value may be different from the price, a property can actually be sold for at a given time. It is the price which is expected if the property is offered for sale in a fair market. In assessing it, the benefits, advantages, arising from its present use or future use are to be taken into consideration. In doing so, the Court may follow the methodology of instances i,e, the Court had to correlate the prices of land which are similarly situated and which are sold at a time which is near to the sale of the acquired land. For this purpose, the genuine instances can be taken into consideration. Even the post-notification examples can be looked into if they are of a proximate in nature. Such instances have to be located with reference to two following yardsticks, namely;
(a) Proximity from time angle; and
(b) Proximity from situational angle.
(3) Having identified the instances, the value of the prices gathered from such exercise may be taken as norm and the market value of the land, under acquisition, may be determined by taking into consideration plus and minus factors. The market value of so acquired land shall be proper compensation. In cases where large block of land is acquired, the Courts must give an allowance of area utilized for the purpose of building roads and leaving open spaces. These allowances would be normally to the extent of 20 to 25% of the land acquired. Similarly, escalation of the prices be considered to the extent of 15 to 20%.
(4) The inflationary trend 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."
10. Applying these principles to facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite clear to us that the acquired land was situated within the urban limits of Multan Corporation. It was near Chowk Lakkar Mandi, Railway Road, Multan. Furthermore, it was situated between metalled roads. In short, it did possess necessary civic amenities, i,e, road, electricity, telephone and was adjacent to Lakkar Mandi. The same was, therefore, an urban immovable property with a potential of commercial use.
This is fully borne by the notification itself which described the object of acquisition as `construction of decent market'. That mutations Exhs.P/3 to P/23 clearly indicate that the sales of similarly situated land were being made in Marlas. The irresistible inference, from the above documents, is that the sales were being made in this locality in small plots and for the commercial purposes.
Muhammad Ishaq who appeared as P.W.7, stated that the acquired land was situated in a commercial area and in cross-examination stated that there were toils over the acquired land even in the year 1953. On the above analysis, we are left in no manner of doubt that the property in dispute was situated within the commercial area of Multan and had the prospect of being used as such.
11. Having held so, now we proceed to determine its correct compensation. Exhs.P/3 to P/2.1 are the mutations of sale which had taken place between 19-1-1961 and 14-4-1963. The conspicuous features of the sales are that they pertain to sales of small pieces of land measuring from 1 Marla to 10 Marlas excepting the sale made through Mutations Nos.2988 and 2999 dated 26-24961 and 26-9-1961 respectively. These sales related to 1 Kanal, 12 Marlas and 1 Kanal. The land, so sold, through afore-noted mutations, had a proximity in time and situation with acquired land. This being the position, we are inclined to hold that the means of the sal,: price embodied in Mutations Nos.P/3 to P/23 shall serve as a solid foundation for determining the compensation of acquired land. This, according to us, will be correct measure of compensation. As regards the auction bide of the plot of acquired land held on 17-2-1967, it is sufficient to say that these bids are not helpful in fixing the compensation of the acquired land for reasons that Multan Development Authority developed the acquired land, built the roads, converted the land into plots and then put them to auction i,e, on 7-2-1967. The offers, made by vendees in auction held in 1967, were the context of wholly charged scenario and these offers/bids, therefore, cannot stand the test of proximity in time or situational proximity. We find it, therefore, wholly unsafe to rely upon the offers contained in Exhs.P/25 to P/36. We are also not persuaded to give much credence to oral testimony of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.7 for the above reasons. Their testimony neither exudes confidence nor is credible when compared with the prices of sales given in Exhs.P/25 to Exh.P/36. Men may lie in order to support their causes but documents cannot. Even otherwise, we have not relied_ upon one document btit have taken the mean of the prices embodied in 14 transactions of sale of land similarly situated incorporated in Mutations Nos.2966, 2967, 2975, 2976, 2977, 2986, 2988, 2990, 2999, 3033, 3056, 3074, 3108, 3109 and 3123. The statement of sales (annexed herewith) will form the part of this judgment. The statement of average ExiLv.C.1 and C.2 are not of much help in fixing the compensation of the acquired land. As a result of above, we hold that the appellants are entitled to receive compensation of acquired land at the rate of Rs,36.52 per square yard.
12. As a result of foregoing discussion, this appeal is hereby accepted. The award rendered by learned Reference Court is hereby set aside. We accordingly enhance compensation of the acquired land from 14.02 rupees per square yard to 36.52 per square yard. The appellants shall be entitled to this compensation after deducting 20% from the land acquired from them. They shall be further entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% and benefits under sections 28 and 34 of the Act from the date of taking of the physical possession of the acquired land by the respondents. The respondents shall bear the cost of proceedings throughout.