SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.- This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 18.4.1998, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was accepted and the compensation amount of the land acquired was fixed as Rs. 60,000/- per kanal plus 15% jabrana'.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the land belonging to the respondents comprising survey No. 101 measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas and survey No. 93 comprising 4 marlas situate in village Danna Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad was acquired for construction of Airport road vide award No. 9/93. The Collector of Land Acquisition fixed the award according to the kinds of the land which varied from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per kanal plus 15% jabrana'. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the respondents initiated a reference to the District Judge who entrusted the same to the Additional District Judge for hearing and disposal. The Additional Judge after taking necessary proceedings increased the compensation amount by 30% in all the cases through a consolidated judgment. The respondents, herein, filed an appeal to the High Court which fixed the compensation amount as Rs.60,000/- per kanal plus 15% jabrana' though a consolidated judgment in favour of the land owners including the respondents, herein. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Additional District Judge framed issues in the reference on 4.1.1994 and observed that as issue No. 1 was of legal nature adjourned the case for hearing of arguments on the said issue on 13.1.1994. Thereafter various adjournments were given for arguments from 4.1.1994 to 13.11.1996. On 5.12.1996, the learned Additional District Judge recorded the impugned judgment and enhanced the compensation amount by 30%.
3. It is evident that the Additional District Judge and the High Court have passed the impugned orders in derogation to the settled principles of law on the subject. It was incumbent upon the Additional District Judge to give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the issues which were framed by him and thereafter to pass the judgment in light of the evidence. It may be observed that compensation amount is to be paid according to the market value of the land acquired and not by applying a uniform formula in absence of any evidence which could enable the Court to fix market value of the land acquired. Obviously, the judgment of the High Court whereby the amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. 60,000/-per kanal though a consolidated judgment is not sustainable. The observation of the High Court in pars 5 of the impugned judgment that as the land which was acquired was to be used for the construction of the road, the compensation should be paid at uniform rate and not according to the kinds of the land etc. Is violative or principles envisaged in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, according to which the compensation is to be assessed on the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is well-accepted principle of law that the market value means the value of land which a willing purchaser is prepared to pay and a willing seller is prepared. To sell. The inclination of the vendor to part with his land and urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy or the use to which the land would be put after the acquisition are to be ignored. Under clause 6 of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act any increase to the value of other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use for which the land acquired, is not to be considered while ascertaining the market value. Similarly, it cannot be said that as the land acquired in a case was to be used for the construction of road, the compensation is to be paid at uniform rate, irrespective of the kinds of land and other recognised principles on the basis of which the market value is to he determined. A reference may be made to the following authorities to elucidate the matter: 1972 SCMR 138), it has been held that the best guide to fix the market value of the land is the price on which the lands were sold in the adjoining village.
PLD 1972 Karachi 128), it has been held that the price fetched by the sale of the adjoining land closest in point of time to the Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act would furnish a reliable guide for determining the market value of the suit land.
4. It may he observed that the Government didn't appeal to the High Court against the judgment of the Additional District Judge and thus, we cannot interfere with the finding of the Additional District Judge which were given without recording the evidence.
However, following the principle laid down by this Court in Civil Appeal No.112 of 1998 titled Azad Government and others v. HO Said Mir and others (decided on 15.4.1999), we keep the order of enhancement made by the Additional District Judge whereby the compensation amount was increased by 30%. However, we set aside the judgment of the High Court in view of the observation made above. Appeal stands partly accepted. In view of the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to the costs.