' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.---This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 25-2- 1997, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, accepted the application of respondents/land owners, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and enhanced the rate of compensation payable to the respondents, for the acquisition of agricultural land measuring 25 Kanals, 6 Marlas, situated in village Sughrianwala, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, for the Lahore-Islamabad Motorway Project, owned by the respondents, from Rs.15,000 per acre to Rs.60,000 per acre. The compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15% per annum and interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the land in question was taken into possession till the payment of the compensation, were also awarded to respondents.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have seen the relevant record with his help. Nobody has turned up for the respondents. They are proceeded ex parte.
3. The relevant facts are that agricultural land measuring 25 Kanals, 6 Marlas bearing Khatuni No.42-min, Khewat No.9, situated at village Sughrianwala, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, along with other land was acquired, vide Award, dated 26-10-1992, for the construction of Lahore- Islamabad Motorway Project. The Notification No.60/DRA, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 8-2-1994 and published on 2-3-1992. The possession of the land was urgently required, therefore, composite Notification under section 17(4) and declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, bearing No.L-351- 91/11/56/REV, dated 18-4-1992 was published on 19-4-1992. After concluding acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the Award on 26-10-1992. The land of the respondents was declared to be barren and the compensation payable to respondents was determined at the rate of Rs.15,000 per acre along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% interest per annum. The respondent, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Acquisition Collector, filed an application, dated 13-5-1993, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was referred to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, for the determination of appropriate compensation. The application was contested by the appellants through written replies by reiterating that the respondents were adequately compensated. The learned Senior Civil Judge, out of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-- ' ISSUES.
(1) Whether the compensation awarded to the applicants for their acquired land under the impugned award, dated 26-10-1992 is inadequate and insufficient? If so, what would be the adequate and sufficient compensation? OPA.
(1A) Is there sufficient cause for condonation of delay in moving the present application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act? OPA.
(2) Relief.
4. The parties thereafter produced their evidence. Sardar Khan, one of the respondents, appeared as A.W.-1 and in addition, Kameer Ali was produced as A.W.-2. The respondents also tendered in evidence the documents Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-7. On the other hand, Mr. Nasrullah Khan (L.A.C.) appeared as R.W.1 and tendered in evidence documents Exh.R-1 to Exh . R- 10 .
5. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, after considering the evidence brought on record and after hearing the arguments, decided the issues in favour of respondents and accepted the application by declaring, that an amount of Rs.60,000 per acre along with 15% as compulsory acquisition charges and 8% interest, per annum, from the date of possession of the land in question, was to be paid to the respondents.
6. Sardar Khan, one of the respondents, appeared as A.W.1 and deposed that the land in question was under cultivation, a tubewell of Irrigation Department stood installed in the acquired land, moreover, they themselves had also installed a tubewell in the same, the market value of the suit- land at the time of its acquisition was Rs.60/70 thousands, per acre, that the surrounding lands were also being sold at the rate of Rs.60/70 thousands, per acre, the other land owners, whose similar lands had been acquired for the same purpose, had been given compensation at the rate of Rs.60/70 thousand per acre, that due to the acquisition of their land, their remaining lands had been partitioned into two portions falling on both sides of the Motorway and having been scattered into many small blocks, it market value had been lowered manifold. A.W.-2 supported the testimony of A.W.-1.
7. On the other hand, the Land Acquisition Collector while appearing as RW-1 deposed that in the Revenue Record, at the time of acquisition, the disputed land was barren, therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000, per acre, was correctly assessed, which was approved by the Revenue Board. He further stated that the land, which was being cultivated or irrigated through canal water, was of the value of Rs.60,000, per acre.
8. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on the basis of Khasra Girdawari (Exh.A-1), held that at the time of acquisition, the acquired land was under cultivation and was not barren and, thus, the market value of the land in question, at the time of its acquisition, was Rs.60,000 per acre.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land in question, at the time of acquisition, was barren and not agricultural and, therefore, the learned Senior Civil Judge drew wrong inference from the evidence available on record, hence the impugned judgment/ decree is liable to be set aside. It has also been argued that copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh.Al relied upon by the learned Senior Civil Judge is in regard to Khewat No.8 belonging to Mst. Bano etc., whereas the land acquired from respondents is situated in Khewat No.9.
10. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have no force: The copies of register Haqdaran Zameen (record of rights) for the year, 1990-91 (Exhs.A5-A6) show that the respondents' land, situated in Khewat No.9, Khatuni No.42-min, was being irrigated by Well and was not barren.
Similarly, copy of Khasra Girdawari for the period from Rabi91 to Kharif-92 (Exh.A7), pertaining to respondents' land situated in Khewat No.9, Khatuni No.42, shows that it was being irrigated by Well.
Even otherwise, the appellants did not produce the relevant Khasra Girdawari, in evidence, to prove their contention that the respondents land, at the time of its acquisition, was barren and was not being irrigated. The Land Acquisition Collector himself admitted as R.W.-1 that the market rate of land under cultivation was Rs.60,000, per acre. Similarly, Exh. R.8, produced by the appellants, which reflects the average sale price of the relevant one year i.e. 19-3-1991 to 1992, in the Mauza, shows that the average price, per acre, was Rs.60,000. The learned Senior Civil Judge has, thus, correctly assessed the market value of the land in dispute at the rate of Rs.60,000, per acre.
11. In view of the above mentioned, we see no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.