SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- Judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore dated 24-10-1998, whereby, he dealt with the references filed by the parties, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and determined the rate of compensation at Rs.10,000 per Maria with 15% compulsory acquisition charges has been challenged through this appeal. Since there were seven references before the learned Senior Civil Judge, who dealt with the same through a common judgment, the appeals arising therefrom i.e. R.F.A. No.29 of 1999, R.F.A. No.30 of 1999, R.F.A. No.31 of 1999, R.F.A. No.32 of 1999, R.F.A. No.33 of 1999, R.F.A. No.34 of 1999 and R.F.A. No.35 of 1999 are being disposed of through this judgment. The appeals have common features as to the quantum of compensation for the land acquired which arise in the circumstances briefly stated below:
2. The land subject-matter of acquisition was situated in Jhugian Nagra, Tehsil and District Lahore which was acquired for the construction of a Grid Station at Band Road, Lahore by Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The land had already been under development by a Housing Society for residential purposes. But request of WAPDA that it was required for a public purpose viz. The construction of 200 KV Grid Station, was acceded to and notification, dated 28-5- 1983 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. For assessing the cost of the land, the matter was referred to Tehsildar, Lahore, who proposed its market value at Rs.6,000 per Marla, however, later on, fresh recommendations were made at Rs.1,500 per Marla and the case was sent to the Commissioner, Lahore, The aggrieved parties submitted a petition before the Commissioner, Lahore for its enhancement, the demand of the owners was that the land was wroth Rs.10,000 per Marla. They also filed a civil suit against acquisition. In the meanwhile the Commissioner, Lahore Division recommended the cost of the --land at Rs.6,000 per Marla and sent the case to the Board of Revenue, whereas, the plea of the WAPDA before the Board of Revenue was that it should be at Rs.1,500 per Maria. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, however, approved the estimated cost of the land at Rs.6,000 per Maria with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The estimated cost of the land was deposited by the WAPDA whereafter, Notification under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 28-11-1983 and Notification under sections 6/7 of the said Act was published on 8-12-1983. The possession was delivered to WAPDA on 23-12-1983. On 19-12-1983, the Land Acquisition Collector (WAPDA) announced the award, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,800 per Marla. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, as mentioned above, were filed which came up to be decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore through the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Senior Civil Judge has erred in fact and law in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000 per Marla which is neither reasonable nor fair. According to the learned counsel, the evidence on record supported only the rate of compensation which was fixed by the Collector in the award and there was no material in support of the findings, recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge. It is submitted that even the respondents had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000 per Maria, the grant of the same higher than that was not warranted. It is further contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge has not kept in view the location and other attending circumstances in enhancing the rate of compensation.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the land had been purchased by the respondents in small pieces for the construction of houses, situated in residential colony being developed for that purpose. His case is that it is within the limits of Lahore Metropolitan, adjacent to developed modern colonies such as Sabza Zar Housing Scheme, Awan Town, Peco and Marghzar Scheme and in view of its location there was a continuous trend of appreciation in its value when it was acquired. It is further contended that mutations and sale- deeds would not reflect the correct value of the land as generally in order to save heavy expenses, duties and fees, the trend is to disclose the price on lower side. It is submitted that even Tehsildar and Board of Revenue had approved the rate at Rs.6,000 per Marla. He supports the findings recorded and conclusion drawn by the learned Senior Civil Judge that the determination of compensation made by the Collector in the award was not realistic or fair. The learned Senior Civil Judge was thus justified in the facts and circumstances to fix the compensation Q Rs.10,000 per Maria. Relies on Collector Land Acquisition, Nowshera and others v. Abdur Rashid and others 1996 CLC 1193 and Province of Punjab and others v. Muhammad Rashid and others 1997 M LD 2568 in support of his contentions.
5. It has come on record and cannot be disputed even that the land is situated where a Housing Society namely Shaheen Town Cooperative Housing Society had been founded for residential purposes. The owners had been opposing the acquisition of this land for WAPDA that the same was to be utilized for their residential houses and had even filed a suit. This aspect had even been noted by the Collector in his award which shows that the owners were not willing for the acquisition of this land and they were deprived of the same by acquiring the same compulsorily. It is in this context that it was to be determined by the Referee Judge as to whether the compensation being given to the owners was adequate, fair and just or not. The Referee Judge, therefore, framed issues as to whether the value of the land assessed in the award was inadequate and what should be the fair and proper valuation of the land. Evidence was produced before the Referee Judge to show that the rate of compensation fixed by the Collector in the award was highly inadequate and unreasonable. On consideration of the nature of the land and its location that it was meant for a residential colony i.e. Shaheen Town Housing Society, it was situated at a distance of about 5,, miles from the centre of the city i.e. District Courts; that it had become a' residential area surrounded by Sabza Zar Housing Scheme and Allama Iqbal Town, other residential colonies and keeping in view its potential. Use and value, the learned Referee Judge came to the conclusion that compensation Rs.10,000 per Marla would be adequate and fair. The view so formed by the learned Referee Judge is not without a basis inasmuch as it had come on record that the land was within the urban area, 5 miles away from the District Courts, surrounded by the Housing Scheme such as Sabza Zar etc. Linked with roads. Besides the deposition of the other witnesses Abdul Aziz, R.W.1, Superintending Engineer (WAPDA) admitted that the owners were developing the land for a housing scheme and it was on the insistence of the WAPDA that it was notified for the construction of a Grid Station. It was also admitted by him that Sabza Zar Housing Scheme of L.D.A. Was adjacent to it and is situated within the Municipal Limits of Lahore and that Awan Town and Peco Scheme were also in its neighbourhood. Ch. Muhammad A.I the Land Acquisition Collector, R.W.2 also stated certain important facts that the members of the society had appeared before him not to acquire their small pieces of land meant for the construction of their residences and that if, in case, the same is to be acquired, they should be paid the compensation of Rs.10,000 per Marla as had been paid to the owners of adjacent Mauza Ram Krishan Wala. He also stated that the land was surrounded by the housing colonies such as Sabza Zar Scheme of L.D.A., Awan Town, Marghzar and Peco Town and was near to Allama Iqbal Town. It was also admitted that in order to avoid stamp duty, Corporation Taxes and Gains Taxes etc., the people do not disclose correct price of the land in the sale-deed, particularly, when there is no right of pre--emption within the limits of Corporation. On a suggestion put to him, he, however, was unable to say that the value of the land per Marla in the Sabza Zar Scheme was Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000 per Marla.
6. The preponderance of the evidence, thus, certainly establish that the land acquired on account of its location had great potential use and value. For the determination of compensation there are various factors which the Court is obliged to keep in view. In Collector Land Acquisition, Nowshera's case (supra) it was observed that:-- "The factors for determination of the market value of the land proposed to be acquired are not restricted only to the time of issuance of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or any period prior to it but can also relate to the period in future. i.e. After the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. It is for this reason that the potential value of the land i.e. The use to which it can be put in future has in a large number of cases been held to be a relevant factor."
1999 SCMR 1615 the land situated near Rawalpindi was acquired for the proposed use as Dhamial Air Field. On the question arising as to the adequacy of compensation, this Court had kept in view that the acquired land was situate in the revenue estates which were situate within the limits of Rawalpindi Cantonment. These were accessible to urban amenities like roads, supply of gas, electricity, telephone, etc. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time of the notification, some portion of the land was under occupation of the Air Field while the other was under crops. We have therefore, no difficulty in saying that the acquired land was urban agricultural land with a potential of being used for residential purpose. The approach adopted by this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. In the instant case, however, it has been established beyond any doubt that the owners had small pieces of land meant for the residential purposes in the Housing Society under development. In Murad Khan through his widow any 13 others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Peshawar and another 1999 SCM R 1647 after taking note of number of precedents on the subject, various factors relevant for determining the amount of compensation were state including the one that the previous sales of the land cannot always be taken into consideration for determining the price of land intended to be acquire and that the objective standard would be the price that owner willing and no obliged to sell might reasonably except to obtain from a willing purchase and that it must not be valued only with reference to its condition at the time of the notification, its potential value must be taken into consideration. The compensation was thus, fixed with reference to that the disputed land is adjacent to Khyber Colony and the construction of Bungalows was in progress around the land during the period 1978 to 1981. And that it was at little distance from the University Road to Takhail Payan. In Government of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner, District Dadu and another v. Ramzan and others 2000 CLC 99, one of the factors in determining the compensation was the proximity of the land with urban area and its potential use to which the same could be put to use in future. Quite recently, the criteria for determination of fair compensation has been elaborated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Province of Punjab through Collector, Attock v.
Engineer Jamil Ahmad Malik and others 2000 SCM R 870. The land in the cited case was for the extension of residential colony of Kamra Rebuild Factory. There are number of factors stated in the judgment to be considered for the determination of the fair compensation including as to what a willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller, the value of the land in the vicinity, the use to which the land is capable of put, present or future, the value of the land in the open market the complexion and the character of the land. It is also stated that only the past sales should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentiality may also be determined.
We consider having regard to the situation of the land, its vicinity that it was surrounded by the housing colonies/scheme such as Sabza Zar Housing Scheme, Awan Town, Marghzar and Peco Colony, at a distance of only 5/6 miles form the District Courts and quite close to Multan Road and a colony like Allama Iqbal Town and that the land in fact had been in the process of development for a residential colony, its price fixed by the reference Court at Rs. 10,000 per Marla cannot at all be regarded on a higher side. We are, therefore, inclined maintain the view formed by the Referee Judge and affirm his findings.
As a result of the above, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.