SETTLEMENT OFFICER GILGIT Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J .---This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the Judgment dated 7-10-2008 passed by the Chief Court in an appeal arising out of an order passed by District and Sessions Judge Gilgit in a reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The land subject matter of the award and reference was acquired for the use of NAPWD Gilgit. The award was given by the Collector Land Acquisition District Gilgit on 3-6-1991 by leaving the objections raised therein open for decision by the Referee Court.
3. The reference was disposed of the referee Court vide Judgment dated 17-11-2005 and the petitioners being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the referee Court assailed the same before the Chief Court by way of an appeal and Chief Court while maintaining the Judgment of referee Court dismissed the appeal.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Collector instead of deciding the objections raised before him sent the same along with reference to the Court, under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, for disposal and thereby failed to exercise the Jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law. The learned counsel forcefully argued that the most important evidence in the form of previous award of the same kind of land brought on record was ignored both by the referee Court and Chief Court as a result of which the material question relating to the quantum of compensation of land was not decided properly in terms of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Advocate General have conceded the location of the land within the municipal limit with the assertion that land was being used for agricultural purpose and its market value was to be determined accordingly.
6. This is a matter of record that land was owned by a large number of land owners in small pieces which could not be as such used in a compact block for agricultural purpose rather had the potential for residential and commercial use.
7. The golden principle for determining the market value of the land is whether the price offered by a willing purchaser is acceptable to a willing seller or not. The relevant factors to be essentially considered for determination of market value of land are, the character of land and its, location as well as potential use in future. The previous award of the similar kind of land in the area is certainly a relevant evidence but the increase in the price of land in the intervening period would reduce its evidentiary value to determine the current market value of the land. The perusal of record would show that respondents land owner have produced the sale deeds in respect of the transaction in the surrounding areas in which the price of land was about Rs.7000 per marla whereas the Collector determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.50000 per kanal.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General at length and also perused the record with their assistance we have not been able to find out any legal or factual defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence or mis-appreciation of law on the subject. There is no cavil to the proposition that the price of the similar kind of land fixed in the previous award can be the direct source for determining the market value of the acquired land, but the correct method for fair determination of market value of the land on the date of issue of notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 is the evidence based on transactions of sales of similar kind of land in the surrounding area shortly before the issue of notification.
9. In the light of foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition calling for interference in the Judgment of the Chief Court and the same is accordingly dismissed.
10. M.H./8/Glt. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.