2016 Y L R 147
2016 Y L R 147
[Peshawar]
Before Ikramullah Khan, J
JAMIL AHMAD and 6 others---Appellants
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Collector and 4 others---Respondents
R.F.A. No.73-D of 2012, decided on 2nd March, 2015.
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
----Ss. 18 & 23----Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96---Reference to court---Rate of compensation---Determining factors---Landowner filed reference petition under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation for the suit property acquired by respondents, which was referred to civil court---Trial Court, after recording evidence, accepted the reference and enhanced rate of compensation----Contention raised by landowner was that the compensation awarded and later enhanced was not according to fair market rate---Respondent took plea that acquired land was barren having no future potentiality---Validity---Acquired land, in the present case, had acquired status of village site---Not only the market value of land but also other factors, which by any means affected interest of petitioner, would be considered for determination of compensation which was to be awarded to petitioner in lieu of his property---Land, in question as per Local commission report, being useful for construction of houses and adjacent to main road, had great potentiality---Referee court failed to consider facts of the case in terms of S. 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---High Court accepting appeal enhanced amount of compensation with acquisition charges and simple interest.
(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
----S. 23---Rate of Compensation---Determining factors---Not only market value of land but also other factors, which by any means affected interest of petitioner, would be considered for determination of compensation which was to be awarded to landowner in lieu of his property.
Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector v. Begum Aziza 2014 SCMR 75 and Askari Cement Limited (Formerly Associated Cement Limited) through Chief Executive v. Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) Punjab and others 2013 SCMR 1644 rel.
Abdullah Khan Gandapur for Appellants.
Sanaullah Shamim, A.A.-G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2015.
JUDGMENT
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.---Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of instant RFA No.73-D/2012 and connected RFA No.93-D/2012 as both the appeals are the outcome of one and the same judgment and decree dated 03.4.2012 rendered by learned Additional District JudgeVI/Referee Judge, D.I.Khan.
2. In essence, certain land of Jamil Ahmad and others (hereinafter called as appellants) was acquired for construction of 'Janaza Gah' at village Abdul Khel, Tehsil Paharpur, District D.I.Khan through award No.770- 75/TLA®-138 dated 10.11.2007 at a nominal price of Rs.6521/46 per kanal.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was referred to learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed the required issues from the pleadings of the parties. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge-VI/Referee Judge, D.I.Khan partially accepted the reference of appellants and enhanced the rate of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per kanal alongwith usual acquisition charges.
4. Dissatisfied with the rate of compensation so fixed, both the parties have filed above mentioned appeals.
5. The learned counsel for appellants contended that the judgment of the learned Referee Judge is against law and the principles enunciated by the superior Courts time and again in this regard; further contended that the property acquired by respondents was of a great potential, but the learned Referee Judge has not considered the same, therefore fell in error of law in determination of fair market rate of the suit property.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for official respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended that the suit land was barren having no any potentiality in future while the land has been acquired for the benefit of the whole community and appellants are the ultimate beneficiary, to use the land as graveyard.
7. I have heard learned counsel and have through the record.
8. The record reveals that the property under consideration had acquired the status of village site, as per report of the local commission, people of the village had constructed houses around the property which were adjacent to the main general road, some shops and a filtration plant was existing on one side of the property under consideration. In case of Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector v. Begum Aziza (2014 SCMR 75) the Apex Court has laid down the following principles germane to section 23 of Land Acquisition, which are as follows:--
"In Abdur Rauf Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector/D.C. (1991 SCMR 2164) this court while dilating upon the question of rate of compensation laid down following principles germane to section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act which may be kept in view. Those are as follows:--
"(i) That an entry in the Revenue Record as to the nature of the land may not be conclusive, for example, land may be shown in Girdawari as Maira, but because of the existence of a well near the land, makes it capable of becoming Chahi land;
(ii) That while determining the potentials of the land, the use of which the land is capable of being put, ought to be considered;
(iii) That the market value of the land is normally to be taken as existing on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act but for determining the same, the prices on which similar land situated in the vicinity was sold during the preceding 12 months and not 6-7 years may be considered including other factors like potential value etc. "
7. The afore-referred ratio was reiterated with greater depth in Murad Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector (1999 SCMR 1647) wherein the court found that though the expression "market value" appearing in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been defined but its import can be appreciated from the precedent case-law. The Court deduced from the precedent case-law the following principles:--
(i) The data from which the market value of the land can be estimated is given in Rule 13 of the North-West Frontier Province Circular No.54 issued presumably under section 55 of the Act. (Premier Sugar Mills Limited v. Hayatullah Khan (PLD 1956 (W.P.) Pesh. 67).
(ii) The best method to work out the market value is the practical method of a prudent man laid down in section 3 of the Evidence Act to examine and analyse all the material and evidence available on the point and to determine the price which a willing purchaser would pay to willing seller of the acquired land. "The Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi v. Lieut. General Wajid Ali Khan Burki (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 469).
(iii) Subsection (1) of section 23 of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation the Court shall take into consideration the market value, loss by reason of severing such land from his other land, acquisition injuriously affecting his other property or his earning in consequence of change of residence or place of business and damage, if any, resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. This, however, is not exhaustive of other injuries or loss which may be suffered by an owner on account of compulsory acquisition. (Province of West Pakistan and another v. M. Salim Ullah and others (PLD 1966 SC 547).
(iv) The best method of determination of the market price of the plots of land under the acquisition is to rely on instances of sale of it near about the date of notification under section 4(i) of the Act. The next best method is to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent lands made shortly before and after the notification. When the market value is to be determined on the basis of the instances of sale of land in the neighbouring locality, the potential value of the land need not be separately awarded because such sales cover the potential value. (Jogendra Nath Chatterjee and others v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1971 Calcutta 458).
(v) It is obvious that the law provides determination of compensation not with reference to classification or nature of land but its market value at the relevant time. No doubt, for determining the market value, classification or the nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but that is not the whole truth. An area may be Banjar Qadeem or Barani as in the present case but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits. (Pakistan and another v. Rehm Dad and another (1980 CLC 574.).
(vi) According to the well-settled principle, while determining the value of the compensation the market value of the land at the time of requisition/acquisition and its potentiality have to be kept in consideration. (Pakistan v. Din Muhammad and others (1983 CLC 1281).
(vii) Consideration should be had to all the potential uses to which the land can be put, as well as all the advantages, present or future, which the land possesses in the hands of the owners. (Mst. Khatu and others v. Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Thatta (PLD 1977 Kar. 203).
(viii) In determining the quantum of fair compensation the, main criterion is the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction. (Din Muhammad v. General Manager, Communication and others (PLD 1978 Lah. 1135).
(ix) The measure of fair compensation is the value of the property in open market which a seller voluntarily entering into a transaction of sale can reasonably demand from a purchaser this means that we, have to determine the value of the land in the open market at the relevant time on the assumption that the notification of acquisition did not exist. (Province of Punjab v. Sher Muhammad and another (PLD 1983 Lah. 578).
(x) While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the past sales' should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determined by examining (if necessary as Court witness) local property dealers or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. In appropriate cases there should be no compunction even relying upon the oral testimony with respect to market value of the property intended to be acquired, because even while deciding cases involving question of life and death, the Courts rely on oral testimony alone and do not insist on the production of documentary evidence. The credibility of such witnesses would, however, have to be kept in mind and it would be for the Court in each case to determine the weight to be attached to their testimony. It would be useful and even necessary, to examine such witnesses while determining the market prices of the land in questions because of the prevalent tendency that in order to save money on the purchases of stamp papers and to avoid the imposition of heavy gain tax levied on sale of property, people declare or show a much smaller amount as the price of the land purchased by them than the price actually paid. The previous sales of the land, cannot, therefore, be always taken to be an accurate measure for the determining the price of land intended to be acquired. (Fazalur Rehman and others v. General Manager, S.I.D.B. and another (PLD 1986 SC 158).
(xi) The sale-deed and mutation entries do serve as an aid to the prevailing market value. (Government of Pakistan v. Maulvi Ahmed Saeed (1983 CLC 414).
(xii) It is a well-settled law that in cases of compulsory acquisition effort has to be made to find out what the market value of the acquired land was or could be on the material date. While so venturing the most important factor to be kept in mind would be the complexion and - character of the acquired land on the material date. The potentialities it possessed on that date are also to be kept in view in determining a fair compensation to be awarded to the owner who is deprived of his land as a result of compulsory acquisition under the Act. (Central Government of Pakistan v. Sardar Fakhar-e-Alam and another (1985 CLC 2228).
(xiii) The value of the land of the adjoining area which was simultaneously acquired and for which different formula of compensation has been adopted, should be taken into consideration. (Raza Muhammad Abdullah through his Legal Heirs v. Government of Pakistan and others (1986 MLD 252).
(xiv) The phrase "market value of the land" as used in section 23(1), of the Act means "value to the owner" and, therefore, such value must be the basis for determination of compensation. The standard must be no, subjective standard but an objective one. Ordinarily, the objective standard would be the price that owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The property must be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the determination but its potential value must be taken into consideration. (Abdul Wahid and others v. The Deputy Commissioner (1986 MLD 381). "
8. The learned Referee Court neither adverted to the afore-mentioned principles nor appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There is yet another aspect of the matter which may have a bearing on the value of the property. The notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 27-4-1981; two corrigenda were issued on 6-10-1982; notification under section 5 was published on 20-7-1983; the declaration under section 6 was published on 1-2-1984 and the award was announced on 28-3-1985. Thus it took four years for appellants to complete the acquisition proceedings. The prices may have escalated during this period and this escalation has to be kept in view while assessing the potential value of the land. This is in line with the law laid down by this Court in Province of Sindh v. Ramzan (PLD 2004 SC 512), Abdul Majeed etc. v. Muhammad Subhan etc. (1999 SCMR 1245 at 1255) and Pakistan Burma Shell Limited v. Province of N.-W.F.P. etc. (1993 SCMR 1700).
In case of Askari Cement Limitted (Formerly Associated Cement Limited) through Chief Executive v. Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) Punjab and others (2013 SCMR 1644) the Apex Court has held as
"For determining proper rate of compensation for the acquired land, not only the factors highlighted in Ss.23 and 24 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were relevant, but the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case were more important deciding factors in such regard."
As discussed hereinabove, it shall not be only the market value of the land under acquisition, but other factors, which by any means affect the interest of a land owner, shall be also considered for determination of compensation to be awarded to a land owner in lieu of his property. The land under consideration, according to the report of local commission, is useful for construction of houses and which is adjacent to general road, has a great potentiality in future, but the learned Referee Court has not considered this aspect of the case in view of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
9. For the reasons given hereinabove, RFA No.73-D/2012 is accepted and the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per kanal with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest on the enhanced amount from announcement of this judgment till the realization of the enhanced money, while RFA No.93-D/2012 filed by the Collector, D.I.Khan and others is dismissed according having no merit at all.
SL/267/P Appeal accepted.
[Peshawar]
Before Ikramullah Khan, J
JAMIL AHMAD and 6 others---Appellants
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Collector and 4 others---Respondents
R.F.A. No.73-D of 2012, decided on 2nd March, 2015.
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
----Ss. 18 & 23----Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96---Reference to court---Rate of compensation---Determining factors---Landowner filed reference petition under S.18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation for the suit property acquired by respondents, which was referred to civil court---Trial Court, after recording evidence, accepted the reference and enhanced rate of compensation----Contention raised by landowner was that the compensation awarded and later enhanced was not according to fair market rate---Respondent took plea that acquired land was barren having no future potentiality---Validity---Acquired land, in the present case, had acquired status of village site---Not only the market value of land but also other factors, which by any means affected interest of petitioner, would be considered for determination of compensation which was to be awarded to petitioner in lieu of his property---Land, in question as per Local commission report, being useful for construction of houses and adjacent to main road, had great potentiality---Referee court failed to consider facts of the case in terms of S. 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894---High Court accepting appeal enhanced amount of compensation with acquisition charges and simple interest.
(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
----S. 23---Rate of Compensation---Determining factors---Not only market value of land but also other factors, which by any means affected interest of petitioner, would be considered for determination of compensation which was to be awarded to landowner in lieu of his property.
Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector v. Begum Aziza 2014 SCMR 75 and Askari Cement Limited (Formerly Associated Cement Limited) through Chief Executive v. Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) Punjab and others 2013 SCMR 1644 rel.
Abdullah Khan Gandapur for Appellants.
Sanaullah Shamim, A.A.-G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 2015.
JUDGMENT
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.---Through this single judgment, I intend to dispose of instant RFA No.73-D/2012 and connected RFA No.93-D/2012 as both the appeals are the outcome of one and the same judgment and decree dated 03.4.2012 rendered by learned Additional District JudgeVI/Referee Judge, D.I.Khan.
2. In essence, certain land of Jamil Ahmad and others (hereinafter called as appellants) was acquired for construction of 'Janaza Gah' at village Abdul Khel, Tehsil Paharpur, District D.I.Khan through award No.770- 75/TLA®-138 dated 10.11.2007 at a nominal price of Rs.6521/46 per kanal.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed a reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was referred to learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed the required issues from the pleadings of the parties. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional District Judge-VI/Referee Judge, D.I.Khan partially accepted the reference of appellants and enhanced the rate of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per kanal alongwith usual acquisition charges.
4. Dissatisfied with the rate of compensation so fixed, both the parties have filed above mentioned appeals.
5. The learned counsel for appellants contended that the judgment of the learned Referee Judge is against law and the principles enunciated by the superior Courts time and again in this regard; further contended that the property acquired by respondents was of a great potential, but the learned Referee Judge has not considered the same, therefore fell in error of law in determination of fair market rate of the suit property.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for official respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended that the suit land was barren having no any potentiality in future while the land has been acquired for the benefit of the whole community and appellants are the ultimate beneficiary, to use the land as graveyard.
7. I have heard learned counsel and have through the record.
8. The record reveals that the property under consideration had acquired the status of village site, as per report of the local commission, people of the village had constructed houses around the property which were adjacent to the main general road, some shops and a filtration plant was existing on one side of the property under consideration. In case of Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector v. Begum Aziza (2014 SCMR 75) the Apex Court has laid down the following principles germane to section 23 of Land Acquisition, which are as follows:--
"In Abdur Rauf Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector/D.C. (1991 SCMR 2164) this court while dilating upon the question of rate of compensation laid down following principles germane to section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act which may be kept in view. Those are as follows:--
"(i) That an entry in the Revenue Record as to the nature of the land may not be conclusive, for example, land may be shown in Girdawari as Maira, but because of the existence of a well near the land, makes it capable of becoming Chahi land;
(ii) That while determining the potentials of the land, the use of which the land is capable of being put, ought to be considered;
(iii) That the market value of the land is normally to be taken as existing on the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act but for determining the same, the prices on which similar land situated in the vicinity was sold during the preceding 12 months and not 6-7 years may be considered including other factors like potential value etc. "
7. The afore-referred ratio was reiterated with greater depth in Murad Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector (1999 SCMR 1647) wherein the court found that though the expression "market value" appearing in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been defined but its import can be appreciated from the precedent case-law. The Court deduced from the precedent case-law the following principles:--
(i) The data from which the market value of the land can be estimated is given in Rule 13 of the North-West Frontier Province Circular No.54 issued presumably under section 55 of the Act. (Premier Sugar Mills Limited v. Hayatullah Khan (PLD 1956 (W.P.) Pesh. 67).
(ii) The best method to work out the market value is the practical method of a prudent man laid down in section 3 of the Evidence Act to examine and analyse all the material and evidence available on the point and to determine the price which a willing purchaser would pay to willing seller of the acquired land. "The Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi v. Lieut. General Wajid Ali Khan Burki (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 469).
(iii) Subsection (1) of section 23 of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation the Court shall take into consideration the market value, loss by reason of severing such land from his other land, acquisition injuriously affecting his other property or his earning in consequence of change of residence or place of business and damage, if any, resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. This, however, is not exhaustive of other injuries or loss which may be suffered by an owner on account of compulsory acquisition. (Province of West Pakistan and another v. M. Salim Ullah and others (PLD 1966 SC 547).
(iv) The best method of determination of the market price of the plots of land under the acquisition is to rely on instances of sale of it near about the date of notification under section 4(i) of the Act. The next best method is to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent lands made shortly before and after the notification. When the market value is to be determined on the basis of the instances of sale of land in the neighbouring locality, the potential value of the land need not be separately awarded because such sales cover the potential value. (Jogendra Nath Chatterjee and others v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1971 Calcutta 458).
(v) It is obvious that the law provides determination of compensation not with reference to classification or nature of land but its market value at the relevant time. No doubt, for determining the market value, classification or the nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but that is not the whole truth. An area may be Banjar Qadeem or Barani as in the present case but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits. (Pakistan and another v. Rehm Dad and another (1980 CLC 574.).
(vi) According to the well-settled principle, while determining the value of the compensation the market value of the land at the time of requisition/acquisition and its potentiality have to be kept in consideration. (Pakistan v. Din Muhammad and others (1983 CLC 1281).
(vii) Consideration should be had to all the potential uses to which the land can be put, as well as all the advantages, present or future, which the land possesses in the hands of the owners. (Mst. Khatu and others v. Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Thatta (PLD 1977 Kar. 203).
(viii) In determining the quantum of fair compensation the, main criterion is the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction. (Din Muhammad v. General Manager, Communication and others (PLD 1978 Lah. 1135).
(ix) The measure of fair compensation is the value of the property in open market which a seller voluntarily entering into a transaction of sale can reasonably demand from a purchaser this means that we, have to determine the value of the land in the open market at the relevant time on the assumption that the notification of acquisition did not exist. (Province of Punjab v. Sher Muhammad and another (PLD 1983 Lah. 578).
(x) While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the past sales' should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentialities may also be determined by examining (if necessary as Court witness) local property dealers or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. In appropriate cases there should be no compunction even relying upon the oral testimony with respect to market value of the property intended to be acquired, because even while deciding cases involving question of life and death, the Courts rely on oral testimony alone and do not insist on the production of documentary evidence. The credibility of such witnesses would, however, have to be kept in mind and it would be for the Court in each case to determine the weight to be attached to their testimony. It would be useful and even necessary, to examine such witnesses while determining the market prices of the land in questions because of the prevalent tendency that in order to save money on the purchases of stamp papers and to avoid the imposition of heavy gain tax levied on sale of property, people declare or show a much smaller amount as the price of the land purchased by them than the price actually paid. The previous sales of the land, cannot, therefore, be always taken to be an accurate measure for the determining the price of land intended to be acquired. (Fazalur Rehman and others v. General Manager, S.I.D.B. and another (PLD 1986 SC 158).
(xi) The sale-deed and mutation entries do serve as an aid to the prevailing market value. (Government of Pakistan v. Maulvi Ahmed Saeed (1983 CLC 414).
(xii) It is a well-settled law that in cases of compulsory acquisition effort has to be made to find out what the market value of the acquired land was or could be on the material date. While so venturing the most important factor to be kept in mind would be the complexion and - character of the acquired land on the material date. The potentialities it possessed on that date are also to be kept in view in determining a fair compensation to be awarded to the owner who is deprived of his land as a result of compulsory acquisition under the Act. (Central Government of Pakistan v. Sardar Fakhar-e-Alam and another (1985 CLC 2228).
(xiii) The value of the land of the adjoining area which was simultaneously acquired and for which different formula of compensation has been adopted, should be taken into consideration. (Raza Muhammad Abdullah through his Legal Heirs v. Government of Pakistan and others (1986 MLD 252).
(xiv) The phrase "market value of the land" as used in section 23(1), of the Act means "value to the owner" and, therefore, such value must be the basis for determination of compensation. The standard must be no, subjective standard but an objective one. Ordinarily, the objective standard would be the price that owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The property must be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the determination but its potential value must be taken into consideration. (Abdul Wahid and others v. The Deputy Commissioner (1986 MLD 381). "
8. The learned Referee Court neither adverted to the afore-mentioned principles nor appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There is yet another aspect of the matter which may have a bearing on the value of the property. The notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 27-4-1981; two corrigenda were issued on 6-10-1982; notification under section 5 was published on 20-7-1983; the declaration under section 6 was published on 1-2-1984 and the award was announced on 28-3-1985. Thus it took four years for appellants to complete the acquisition proceedings. The prices may have escalated during this period and this escalation has to be kept in view while assessing the potential value of the land. This is in line with the law laid down by this Court in Province of Sindh v. Ramzan (PLD 2004 SC 512), Abdul Majeed etc. v. Muhammad Subhan etc. (1999 SCMR 1245 at 1255) and Pakistan Burma Shell Limited v. Province of N.-W.F.P. etc. (1993 SCMR 1700).
In case of Askari Cement Limitted (Formerly Associated Cement Limited) through Chief Executive v. Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) Punjab and others (2013 SCMR 1644) the Apex Court has held as
"For determining proper rate of compensation for the acquired land, not only the factors highlighted in Ss.23 and 24 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were relevant, but the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case were more important deciding factors in such regard."
As discussed hereinabove, it shall not be only the market value of the land under acquisition, but other factors, which by any means affect the interest of a land owner, shall be also considered for determination of compensation to be awarded to a land owner in lieu of his property. The land under consideration, according to the report of local commission, is useful for construction of houses and which is adjacent to general road, has a great potentiality in future, but the learned Referee Court has not considered this aspect of the case in view of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.
9. For the reasons given hereinabove, RFA No.73-D/2012 is accepted and the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- per kanal with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest on the enhanced amount from announcement of this judgment till the realization of the enhanced money, while RFA No.93-D/2012 filed by the Collector, D.I.Khan and others is dismissed according having no merit at all.
SL/267/P Appeal accepted.
Comments
Post a Comment