JAWED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is preferred on behalf of Province of Punjab through Collector Attock against the judgment dated 13-9-2001 passed by learned Lahore High Court, (Reawalpindi. Bench) whereby the. Regular First Appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment dated 30-6-1991 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock has been kept intact.
2. The learned Senior Civil Judge while dismissing reference under section 18 of the Land.
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act) determined the rate of land in the tune of Rs,6, 130 per Marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest with effect from 28-7-1986 to 20-9-1986.
3. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfer, learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged strenuously that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been dilated upon in their true perspective by the learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is argued with vehemence that the market value of the land in question has been determined wrongly and tremendous increase has been allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge without reasonable justification and by ignoring the relevant factors. It is also contended that market value of the land in question has been fixed without having any topographical survey as to the nature of the land as well as the price of land prevailing in the same vicinity.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case and perused the judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge dated 30-6-1991 as well as the judgment impugned. The entire record has been scanned with the eminent assistance of learned Assistant Advocate-General.
5. All the contentions agitated before the learned Division Bench have been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- "5. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the price of the suit-land at the rate of Rs,35,942.20 per Kanal on the basis-of the price approved by the District Collector and by saying that those were reasonable and did not hold any inquiry into the matter. The learned trial Court, therefore, correctly held that he failed to apply his judicious mind and the potential value of the land was also not considered by him.In these circumstances, it was correctly held that it is not a speaking award. On the other hand, the respondent produced certified copies of five registered sale-deeds which all pertain to the year 1983 and are available on record as Exh.P.1 to Exh.P.5. They pertain to the relevant period and on the basis of these sale-deeds the trial Court has worked out the average price per Marla as Rs,6,130. There is nothing on the record to come to a conclusion that the aforesaid sale deeds are fictitious. Furthermore, the acquired land is situated within the Municipal limits of Fateh Jan and the R.W.1 also admitted that it was situated on Fateh Jang, Attock Road. R.W.
Admitted that the distance between the suit-land and Abadi was between 300 yards. This all established the potential value of the land acquired. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any illegality or misreading of evidence in the impugned judgment."
6. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the learned High Court being well-based and unexceptionable does not warrant interference.
7. In the same wake of event we have to regretfully observe that the Land Acquisition Collector has acted quite arbitrarily inasmuch as that before passing the impugned order he did not care to have gone through the controversy with such prudence as is quasi-judicial office demanded to him. The Land Acquisition Collector appears to have failed to apply his cautious mind to the facts of the case and toed the line drawn ill-founded by the District Collector who determined the price in sum of Rs,35,942.20 per Kanal without any reasoning. No attention worth the name has been paid to the registered sale-deeds pertaining to the year 1983 (Exh.P1 to Exh.P5) which were not rebutted and it amounts to admission. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the District Collector did not bother to examine the Prevalent market value at their own. There is no denying the fact that the land in question is within the Municipal limits of Fateh Jang (Attock Road) at a distance of about 300 yards. The location of the land itself speaks that fair market value could not be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the District Collector who acted in a cursory and casual manner.
8. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab could not point out any jurisdictions error, illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned persuading us to grant leave to appeal. Besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave declined.