MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---- Present single judgment shall decide this appeal (R.F.A. No.26 of 1996) and the connected two appeals (R.F.As. Nos.27 and 65 of 1996) as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the appeals and additionally they have arisen out of a common judgment rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge.
2. The appellants, through the filing of these appeals, have called in question judgment dated 17-5- 1995, whereby the learned trial Court, upon references under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, enhanced the compensation of the suit land from Rs.634.78 per Marla to Rs.1,006 per Marla, in addition to the compulsory acquisition charges.
3. Brief facts culminating to the filing of these appeals are that the appellants were the owners of the land, situated in Mouza Khiali Shahpur, Tehsil and District Gujranwala; respondent No.1 acquired the land in question for respondent No.4 for the establishment of small estate industry and notification under section 4, for the acquisition of the suit land, belonging to the appellants, was issued on 22-5-1978. Subsequently, the said notification was amended on 1-10-1980, notification under section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 24-12-1980 and 7-1-1981 respectively, the award was announced on 20-4-1981 and 15-8-1981 and the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation of the suit land @ Rs.634.78 per Marla. The appellants being dissatisfied with the said award filed applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereupon the reference was sent to the Civil Courts for determination of the compensation. Their main stance was that the compensation is not adequate and does not commensurate with the market value, as the suit land is situated at Lahore-- Gujranwala Bypass, which is a valuable property, and the assessm ent of the compensation @ Rs.634.78 per Marla is too low price and not a proper compensation, therefore, the same may be enhanced. The respondents contested the references by way of filing the written statements, pleading therein that the compensation is fair, proper and adequate.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the petitioners are estopped by their words and conduct from filing the suit in hand?
OPR.
(2) Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition in hand? OPR.
(3) Whether the compensation of land acquired has been undervalued, if so, what should be the rate of compensation? OPA.
(4) Relief.
The appellants led separate evidence in each case and produced Halqa Patwari, who inter alia, produced the copies of Annual Average Sale Statement of Mouza Khiali Shahpur, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, which were exhibited as Exh.P.1 and Exh. P.2, 'Aks Shajra' and a copy of mutation were exhibited as Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4. The statements of the appellants were recorded, who were not even cross---examined by the respondents. The respondents did not produce any evidence in affirmative or rebuttal Ultimately, the learned trial Court, while relying upon Exh.P.2, enhanced, the compensation of the suit land from Rs.634.78 to Rs.1,006 and also awarded compulsory acquisition charges to the appellants vide judgment dated 17-5-1995. The appellants, being still unsatisfied, filed the present appeals, challenging the aforesaid judgment, however, no appeal has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants have contended that the learned trial Court omitted to take into consideration the document Exh.P.1 and has erroneously relied upon Exh.P.2 and thus according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. They have further contended that although the appellants were entitled to 8 % interest in view of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, yet they have not been awarded the interest illegally and as such they pray for the awarding of interest.
Conversely, the learned Law Officer has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for the dismissal of these appeals.
6. Upon the examination of the record, we find that on facts the parties are not at variance. The appellants have produced in evidence Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2. Which are the copies of Annual Average Sale Statement of the period from 1-10-1979 to 1-10-1980 (Exh.P.1) and from 30-6-1977 to 30-6-1978 (Exh.P.2). There is difference of price of land in these two documents, as according to Exh.P.1, price of land per Marla comes to Rs.1,576.47, while according to Exh.P.2, per Marla price comes to Rs.1,006.
These two documents were produced by the appellants and admitted in evidence through Patwari, who has been cross-examined. The learned trial Court, while coming to the conclusion that the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is 22-6-1978, and relying upon Exh.P.2 has assessed the price of land in dispute as Rs.1,006 per Marla, thereby completely forgetting that the notification was amended subsequently and a fresh notification was issued on 1-10-1980. Although the learned trial Court was conscious of the fact that the price of land, as assessed in Exh. P.1, comes to Rs.1, 576.47, yet, it while taking the date of notification as 22-6-1978, enhanced the compensation according to Exh.P.2. We are of the view that as earlier notification dated 22-6-1978 was not implemented and the same was subsequently amended, therefore, the date of notification would be taken as 1-10-1980 instead of 22-6-1978. In view whereof, we are inclined to modify the impugned judgment.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down different guidelines for determining the market value of the land for payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition by the Government for public purpose in a case reported as Murad Khan through his widow and 13 others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Peshawar and another (1999 SCM R 1647), which guidelines have been reproduced in a judgment reported as Nisar Ahmad Khan and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Swabi and others (PLD 2002 SC 25). Out of those guidelines, some of them are to rely on instances of the sale near about the notification under section 4(i) of the Act; the market value of the land at the time of the requisition/acquisition and its potentiality have to be kept in consideration; the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction; the value of the property in open market which a seller voluntarily entering into a transaction of sale can reasonably demand from a purchaser and the market value of the acquired land on the material date. Being guided by the law declared by the apex Court of the country in the afore-noted two judgments, we are of the view that in this case, the compensation ought to lave been assessed on the basis of Exh.P.1 and the reliance of the learned trial Court of Exh.
P.2 is misconceived and violation of the guidelines provided in the afore-enoted judgments.
Additionally, it has been brought on record through independent evidence, in the statement of 'Patwari' that the land in question situates in the South of Bypass. Thus to our mind, the best course for the learned trial Court, under the law, was to determine the amount of compensation on the basis of Exh.P.1, to which there is no rebuttal on the record on behalf of the respondents.
8. We find from the record that in order to rebut, whatever, evidence produced by the appellants, the respondents did not lead any evidence, inasmuch as the person, who has signed the written statement, did not even got recorded his own statement. We further find that when the appellants appeared as their own witnesses as A.W.2, they were not even cross-examined by the respondents, meaning thereby that their statements were deemed to be admitted by the respondents, under the law.
9. So far as the question of grant of interest is concerned, after the examination of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, we find that in the present set of circumstances, the appellants were entitled for the grant of interest under the said provisions of law. The learned trial Court without discussing this aspect of the case has declined to award the interest to the appellants, which to our mind, the appellants were entitled, thus to that extent, the judgment also stands modified.
10. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the same requires modification, thus we direct for the modification of the impugned judgment to the extent that the amount of compensation of the suit land is assessed at the rate of Rs.1,576.47 per Marla instead of Rs.1,006 per Marla in addition to the amount of interest as per section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
11. Upshot of the above discussion is that all the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments dated 17-5-1995 stand modified to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. No order as to costs.