IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2619 OF 2016 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 
08.09.2016 passed by the Peshawar High 
Court, D.I. Khan Bench in RFA No. 103-
D/2013) 
 
WAPDA through Chairman and others 
 
 
 
 
… Appellants 
Versus 
Alam Sher and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellants: 
Syed Abid Hussain Shah, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
Mr. Anwar Awan, ASC 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
28.03.2023 
 
JUDGMENT 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this appeal under 
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the appellants have assailed 
the judgment dated 08.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of the 
Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench whereby the Regular First Appeal 
filed by the appellants was dismissed and the order of the learned Judge 
Land Acquisition, D.I. Khan dated 29.06.2013 was upheld.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants 
acquired the land of the respondents for construction of F.C. Sherana 
Drain CRBIP Stage-III, Wapda, D.I. Khan. The District Collector/Deputy 
Commissioner, D.I. Khan issued notification on 18.11.1996 under Section 4 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published in the official 
gazettee on 18.02.1997. Subsequently, the Award No. 80 was issued on 
11.08.2003 and the compensation was announced as Rs.3328.20/- per 
kanal. The respondents filed Objection Petition under Section 18 of the 
Civil Appeal No. 2619/2016 
-: 2 :-
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhancement of the compensation 
amount. The matter was ultimately taken up by the Senior Civil Judge, D.I. 
Khan as Referee Judge and vide judgment and decree dated 08.04.2010, 
the learned Referee Court enhanced the compensation amount from 
Rs.3328.20/- per kanal to Rs.10,282.40/- per kanal along with 15% 
compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple interest. The respondents 
challenged the said judgment and decree before the learned Peshawar 
High Court, D.I. Khan. The learned High Court vide its order dated 
13.05.2013 accepted the appeal filed by the respondents and remanded 
the matter back to the learned Referee Court with a direction to appoint 
local commission to ascertain the fair and actual market value of the land 
and thereafter decide the case afresh. In post-remand proceedings, the 
learned 
Judge 
Land 
Acquisition/Referee 
Court 
enhanced 
the 
compensation amount from Rs.10,282.40/- per kanal to Rs.25000/- per 
kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6% simple 
interest on the difference from date of possession till final recovery of the 
amount, minus the amount, if any, already paid to the respondents. Being 
aggrieved, the appellants filed RFA No. 103-D/2013 before the learned 
Peshawar High Court but the same has been dismissed vide impugned 
judgment. Hence, this appeal under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 
1894.  
3. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants 
contended  that the compensation of the acquired land was rightly fixed in 
the Award dated 11.08.2003 keeping in view the nature of the land, which 
is adequate and needs no interference. Contends that the Local 
Commission did not place on record any documentary evidence and solely 
based its findings on the oral evidence, which is not warranted under the 
law. Contends that pursuant to an amendment in Section 23 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894, which was made in the year 2001, the 
compensation has to be determined according to the market value of the 
land on the date of taking possession of the land. Contends that the 
possession of the land was taken on 28.02.2002, therefore, the 
compensation ought to have been awarded according to that date. Lastly 
Civil Appeal No. 2619/2016 
-: 3 :-
contends that the impugned judgment is against the law, facts and record 
of the case, therefore, the same may be set at naught.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 
defended the impugned judgment by stating that the learned High Court 
has passed a well reasoned judgment, which is based on correct 
appreciation of the evidence available on the record, therefore, the same 
needs no interference.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some 
length and have perused the available record with their able assistance.  
6. 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the order of the learned 
Peshawar High Court dated 13.05.2013 by which the matter was 
remanded back to the learned Referee Court with a direction to appoint 
local commission to ascertain the fair and actual market value of the land 
was neither challenged by the appellants nor by the respondents before 
this Court. Therefore, the same had attained finality. We have perused the 
report of the Local Commission dated 24.06.2013. The report shows that 
during the spot inspection, the concerned Patwari Halqa, Patwari CRBC 
and Moharrir of the Court were also accompanying the Local 
Commissioner. The report depicts that different mutations of the same 
mouza pertaining to years 2001 to 2003 were produced before the Local 
Commission. Those mutations were of the same time when the acquisition 
process was finalized and the land of the respondents was taken into 
possession i.e. 28.02.2002. The same were also made part of the record. 
During spot inspection, the statements of different landlords and property 
dealers of the same vicinity were also recorded, which were also made 
part of the record. It was also noticed that the land of the respondents 
was bifurcated in two blocks and in one block the land was irrigated 
through outlet privately built by the respondents over drain, without 
which, even after acquisition, irrigation of the acquired land was almost 
impossible. Two years average for the period 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2003 
were also taken on record while determining the fair market value of the 
land of the respondents. After taking into consideration the documentary 
Civil Appeal No. 2619/2016 
-: 4 :-
evidence in the shape of mutations, two years average, bifurcation of the 
acquired land in two different blocks and oral statements of the landlords 
& property dealers, which were also reduced into writing, and disturbance 
of irrigation sources of the acquired land, the Local Commissioner came to 
the conclusion that the fair market value of the land was Rs.25000/- per 
kanal. Mr. Muhammad Ghazanfar Ali, Advocate, who was appointed Local 
Commissioner also appeared before the learned Trial Court and recorded 
his statement as CW-1. He was put to lengthy cross-examination by the 
appellants but no deficiency in his report could be brought on record. 
Mode of determining the compensation of acquired land is provided in 
Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which depicts that the 
landowner is entitled to compensation and not just market value, as such, 
any loss or injury occasioned by its severing from other property of the 
landowner, by change of residence or place of business and loss of profits 
are also relevant factors. While conducting said exercise, oral evidence, if 
found credible and reliable can also be taken into consideration. The 
requirement of Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, squarely 
requires that it should be produced directly if the same is in oral form. We 
have noticed that in the present case, the oral evidence came from a 
source, which no doubt can be termed as direct, because the other 
landowners and property dealers were of the same vicinity and were fully 
aware of the market/potential value of the land. Even otherwise, the oral 
statements of the other landowners and property dealers of the same 
vicinity had been corroborated with other evidence produced on record, 
such as, (i) certain mutations in respect of the same mouza, (ii) two years 
average for the period 01.01.2002 to 01.01.2003 (Ex.PW-3/25), (iii) aks 
shajra kishtwar, & (iv) khasra girdawri (Ex.PW-3/2), which revealed that 
there was cultivation in the suit property up to the year 2004. Learned 
counsel for the appellants had argued that pursuant to an amendment in 
Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the province of KPK, the 
compensation has to be determined according to the market value of the 
land on the date of taking possession of the land. Before proceeding 
Civil Appeal No. 2619/2016 
-: 5 :-
further, it would be in order to reproduce the relevant provision of Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as under:- 
“23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.— (1) In 
determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land 
acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration—  
 
first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the 
notification under section 4, sub-section (1). 
 
7. 
 
This provision stands amended by the NWFP Amendment 
Ordinance XVII of 2001 in the following terms:- 
“first, the market value of the land on the date of taking 
possession of the land..” 
 
8. 
 
Admittedly, this question was not raised before the lower 
forums. This is settled law that this Court in its appellate jurisdiction would 
generally not determine any ground or question of fact that had not been 
pleaded or raised by the parties at any stage before the Referee Court or 
the High Court and has been for the first time raised in appeal before this 
Court. Reliance is placed on Sarhad Development Authority NWFP Vs. 
Nawab Ali Khan (2020 SCMR 265), Ali Khan Vs. Soomar (1968 SCMR 565) & 
Malik Ghulam Hussain Vs. Haji Muhammad Hayat (PLD 1971 SC 573). In 
Sarhad Development Authority NWFP Vs. Nawab Ali Khan (2020 SCMR 
265), this Court considered the effect of amendment in Section 23(1) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, made by the Province of Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa and held as under:- 
“11.  What is interesting to note is that, unlike Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in 
the other three provinces, section 23(1) of the Act has not been 
amended, and the "market value" of the land, as originally enacted, is 
determinable on basis of the value prevailing on the date of gazette 
publication of the notification under section 4(1) ibid. Thus, it is crucial 
to note that since 2001, when the Amendment was introduced in the 
Act, it is only in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa that, the determining criteria for 
deciding the "market value" of the property proposed to be acquired 
within the contemplation of section 23(1) has been the prevalent 
value of land on the date of taking possession of the said property, 
and not the date when the notification under section 4(i) ibid was 
published in the official gazette. ………………………….. 
 
17.  Thus, in view of the above, it would be safe to state that not only 
in Khyber Pahktunkhwa, but even in other three provinces, where 
Civil Appeal No. 2619/2016 
-: 6 :-
section 23(1) of the Act has not been amended, it is noted that: firstly, 
the value of similar land in the adjoining khasras and mauzas to the 
acquired land was taken into consideration for determining the 
amount of compensation to be awarded to owners of the acquired 
property; and secondly, the escalation of price of land during the 
acquisition period till its culmination in issuance of the award could be 
taken into consideration; and thirdly, for assessing the "potential 
value" of the acquired land, the most critical factor, which is to be 
kept in mind is the future utility of the proposed acquired land, 
keeping in view the availability of facilities for its said utilization; and 
finally, there can be no mathematical formula set for the 
determination of the compensation due to the landowners for the 
compulsory acquisition of their property. And thus, various factors 
depending on the circumstances of each case would cumulatively form 
the basis for determining the "market value" of the acquired land 
within the contemplation of section 23(1) of the Act.” 
 
(Emphasis is supplied) 
 
9. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we are of the view that 
the learned courts below while passing the judgments have taken into 
consideration all the relevant factors, as mentioned in Sarhad 
Development Authority supra case, which being well reasoned do not 
warrant interference. The compensation enhanced by the learned Referee 
Court, which was upheld by the learned High Court, was in consonance 
with the law laid down by this Court as well as with Section 23 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently, this appeal having no merit is 
dismissed.  
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
28th of March, 2023 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram 
 
