SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--- The above entitled appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the High Court dated 18.4.1998, whereby compensation amount of the land acquired was fixed as Rs. 60,000/- per kanal.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that land comprising survey No. 214, measuring one kanal 18 marlas, survey No. 150, measuring two kanals 14 marlas, survey No. 153 measuring one kanal 14 marlas, and survey No. 200, measuring two kanals one marla, total 8 kanals 7 marlas was acquired vide award No. 9/93 dated 8.2.1993 for the construction of airport road at Muzaffarahad. The Collector Land Acquisition fixed the compensation amount on the basis of kinds of various pieces of land which varied from Rs. 30,000/- per kanal to Rs. 50,000/- per kanal plus jabrana. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation amount fixed by the Collector, the respondents tiled a reference to the District Judge who entrusted the made to the Additional District Judge for hearing. The Additional District Judge increased the compensation amount by 30%. Both the parties went up in appeal against the order of the District Judge to the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, herein, and accepted the one filed by the respondents; the compensation amount was fixed as Rs. 60,000/- per kanal.
3. Kh. Attaullah, the learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that the High Court has enhanced the compensation amount without giving any valid reasons. The learned counsel has argued that under Land Acquisition Act, the market value is to he proved in view of well-settled principles of law by leading evidence. But in the instant case the High Court has adopted a uniform formula for fixing compensation without any evidence and enhanced the amount to the tune of Rs.
60,000/- per kanal plus jabrana'. He has argued that the High Court was not correct in holding the as the land was being acquired for the construction of road resulting in the enhancement of the prices in the vicinity, it was just to enhance the market value of the land acquired. The learned counsel has also contended that there was no Material before the Additional District Judge for enhancing the compensation amount without adverting to the market value of the suit land. The learned counsel has further argued that the appellants, herein, were not given any opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal.
4. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that in view of the fact that the price of the immovable property has increased enormously, the orders passed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
5. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised at the Bar and gone through the record. The perusal of the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge reveals that evidence of the appellants has not been closed. On appeal to the High Court by the contending parties, the High Court, vide impugned judgment, held that all the land-owners are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per kanal. It may be observed that the Collector fixed the compensation amount keeping in view the kinds of lands which is one of the principles for determining the market value of the land acquired. Thus, the compensation amount could not he increased by adopting a uniform formula in all the cases, irrespective of the kinds of the land. The observation of the High Court in para 5 of the impugned judgment that as land which was acquired was to be used for the construction of the road, the compensation should he paid at uniform rate and not according to the kinds of the land etc. Is violative of principles envisaged in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, according to which the compensation is to be assessed according to 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 he put after the acquisition are to he 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 he said that as the land acquired in a case was to he used for the construction of road, the compensation is to he 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 he 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 Kar. 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.
6. It may he observed that in view of the provisions contained under Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation is to be paid taking into consideration the market value of the land in view of the criteria laid down therein and not by applying a uniform formula in all cases, irrespective of the kind of the land acquired and its market value.
7. In the light of what has been stated above, we accept the above entitled appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Additional District Judge and the High Court and remand the case to the Additional District Judge to afford an opportunity to the appellants, herein, to lead evidence. -If any, and after re-hearing the arguments, decide the cases afresh according to law.