M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.-- The R.F.A Nos. 28 to 31 of 1985 are being decided through this judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these four (4) appeals directed against the order dated 12.5.1985 of Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi 'whereby the Amount of compensation payable to respondents was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 25000/- per marla.
2. The relevant facts are that four (4) plots measuring 2 marlas each, total measuring 8 marlas, in these appeal owned, by private respondents were acquired alongwith other land for defence purposes and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 was issued on 28.6.1978 and the Land Acquisition. Collector vide his Award dated 29.12.1981 fixed the market value of the whole of the acquired land at the rate of.Rs. 21712.40 per kanal i.e. 'Rs. 1,085/- per marla and the respondents/land owners claiming the market value to be Rs. 50/60 thousand per marla filed four separate petitions for References under Sections 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same - were forwarded to the Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi for the determination of compensation payable to respondents. It was contended by the land owners that the land in dispute was purchased by each of them (two (2) marlas each, on 13.12.1977 for a consideration of Rs. 18000/- per marla for commercial purposes, all the foursites were facing the Chaklala Road, they purchased these plots for constructing a row of shops, it had extraordinary, potentialities, it was a commercial area which is located just opposite to the main gate of P.A.F Base Chaklala, adjacent to P.A.F. Transmission Station situated in the center of almost all the important places of Rawalpindi City and the average value of commercial plots similar to the ones in dispute in the surrounding area prior to the time of the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act was not less than R s. 50000/- per male and the rate of compensation fixed in the Award was extremely low and the Land Acquisition Collector had fixed the compensation of entire land at the rate of Rs. 21,712.40 per kanal. The petitions were contested by the appellants. The learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues. The arguments have been addressed by, the learned counsel for the parties only on the issues No. 4 and 5 which are reproduced below:-
(4) What was market value of land in question prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4? OPP. (5) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive enhanced compensation. If so at what rate? OPP.
3. The learned Trial Court recorded the evidence produced by the parties and vide its order dated 12.5.1985, as mentioned above, fixed the market price of the suit land as Rs. 25000/- per marla.
Hence, these appeals by Pakistan.
4.. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also seen the record. It may also be mentioned here that the respondents have already received the compensation as enhanced by the learned Trial Court.
5. It iS contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the. Respondents failed to produce any evidence pointing towards the market value of the land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Trial Court failed to take into consideration the documentary evidence produced by the appellant in the shape of Aust-Yak-Sala (average price of one year) for the period prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition.
Act (Mark-A) and the Land Acquisition Collector correctly determined the market value of the land in dispute at Rs. 21,712.40 per kanal.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents/land owners, while opposing these appeals has submitted that the nature, size and the location of the plots as they existed at the time of, their acquisition, show that they were commercial in nature and ample evidence as produced, oral as well as documentary, to demonstrate that the market value of the suit lands was much higher even than the one fixed by the Trial Court and the Land Acquisition Collector fell in error in determining the market value at such a law price because instead of keeping in view the different nature and location of different pieces of lands being acquired, he determined the market value of the whole of the land acquired, including the land in dispute, at the rate of Rs. 21,712.40 per kanal.
7. The perusal of record shows that the respondents produced three witnesses in support of their cases and their depositions are worth mentioning. PW 1 Muhammad Yousaf Patweri stated that the land in dispute was situated on Chaklala Road and P.A.F. Colony, P.A.F. Cinema and a Bank were in existence just opposite the suit land. PW Anwar Abbasi, a property Dealer, also deposed to the similar effect and further stated that the market value of the land which abuts Chaklala Road (as admittedly is the position of suit land) was Rs: 40/50 thousand per made whereas the market value of the land which did not about Chaklala Road but was away from the said road was Rs. 18 to 20 thousand per marla and in his opinion market value of the suit land at the time of its acquisition was Rs. 40/50 thousand per marla. PW 3 Mirza Hashmat A.I, one of the, petitioners, appeared as his own witness as well as attorney of other petitioners. He fully supported the Reference petitions and further deposed that the petitioners purchased the plots in question in 1977 for purposes of constructing shops on the ground floor and flats on the first floor and that in view of the location the suit land had acquired a commercial status. It may also be mentioned here that all these three witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but of no avail. The appellant in rebuttal produced only one witness namely Mr. Sabir Din, Deputy M.E.O. As RW 1 and he admitted in the cross-examination that at the time of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year -1978, there existed Electric Power House, P.A.F. Transmission Station, P.A.F. Cinema' and a Bank just opposite the suit land and that R.A.F. Residential colony was complete.
8. The above mentioned shows that the suit land was situated on the ma in Chaklala Road and P.A.F. Cinema, a Bank and P.A.F Colony was situated just opposite the suit land and these facts establish that the suit land at the time of its acquisition was a building site and the sizes and location of plots of respondents show that these were commercial in nature and could, therefore, fetch far greater price than the residential plots which did not abut the main road. The appellants have failed to rebut this convincing evidence produced by the respondents in regard to the memorial nature of the suit property. We are, therefore, of the view that the Land Acquisition Collector fell in error in no appreciating the commercial nature of the suit land and the reliance by him upon Aust-Yak-Sala of the sales in the entire area was not proper as the same would not reflect the commercial nature of the suit land. It may also be mentioned here that the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence except an uncertified photostat copy of Aust Yak Sala and the Trial Court, therefore, correctly did not place any reliance on the same and has correctly held that "even otherwise the land in dispute is situated in far better place than the instances noted in (Aust Yak Sala). In view of the special feature it must carry a price higher than the average price shown in the aforesaid document." In Province of Punjab through Collector, Attock vs. Engr. Jarmil Ahmad Malik and others (2000 SCM R 870) + (PSC 2000 SC (Pak) 921) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while determining the potentials of the land, the use of which the land is capable of being put, ought to be considered. We have also noticed that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act 1894 was issued on 28.6.1978 and the Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 29.12.1981 i.e. 31/2 years after the issuance of above notification and by then' the price of the land must have gone further higher than the one ascertained by the Trial Court.
9. In' view of the above mentioned, we see no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.