' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23-1-1996 delivered by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court.
2. The factual aspect of the controversy is that Land Acquisition Collector by notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 22-11-1959 acquired land measuring 712 Kanal for extension of Ayub National Park. Land Acquisition Collector passed the award on 13.6.1968 and worked out different types of compensation for various kinds of land as indicated in the award.
Petitioners were not satisfied with the market value fixed in the award of the Collector and, therefore, filed objection-petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference to the Acquisition Judge. The learned Referee Judge by Judgment dated 5-5-1979 accepted the petition to the extent that all types of acquired land were allowed compensation at the rate of Rs,3,000 per Kanal. This judgment of the Referee Court was impugned in appeal but with no success.
3. We heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners.
4. The potential of the acquired land for its residential and commercial use in future has been admitted by the learned Acquisition Judge in these words:-- "The land acquired was located very close to the Prime Minister House which in the year 1958 was in occupation of Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army. The land acquired was definitely located at possibly the best place in Rawalpindi in between the G.T. Road and Murree Brewery Road."
' This observation was affirmed by the High Court in appeal. According to Mutation No,III attested on 31-12-1958 (Exh.A/I) the average price per Kanal comes to Rs,6,000 which is double the price fixed by the Referee Court, but this mutation was not taken into consideration for determining the market value as it pertained to a sale of small piece of land, and for this reliance was placed on Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province of Punjab (1992 CLC 1775). The Rule laid down in 1992 CLC 1775, to the effect that if the land acquired is a small piece then it would be legally justified to fix its price at lower rate than the price of similar land if acquired in large quantity, would need examination by this Court as it is of public importance and is likely to affect determination of price in land acquisition cases in future. The second point which is to be considered is as to whether the land owners were not entitled to some enhancement in compensation for intervening period between the date of Notification under section 4 and the award which in this case comes to more than five years. It is to be noted that in the impugned judgment, no reliance has been placed on the sale deeds executed on 22-3-1960 and 20-11-1959 on the basis of which Mutations Nos.298 and 201 have respectively been attested on 2-3-1961 and 13-2-1960. According to these deeds, the price is much higher in the one determined by the Acquisition Judge. Although these sale-deeds were executed a bit later than the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, therefore, the third point that needs consideration would be as to whether the said registered deeds could not form basis for determination of sale price on account of the rule laid down in Fazalur Rehman and others v.
General Manager, S.I.D.B. And another (PLD 1986 SC 158) and Malik Aman and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (PLD 1988 Supreme Court 32). We, therefore, grant leave to appeal as stated above.