IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- R.F.A. No.50 of 1999 titled Ihsanul Haq and others appellants v.
Executive Engineer Highway, Mardan Division, Mardan and others, respondents and R.F.A. No.70 of 1999, titled Collector Land Acquisition, Nowshera and others, appellants v. Ihsanul Haq and others, respondents, call in question the legality and propriety of. The impugned judgment and decree dated 14-7-1999 announced by learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Judge, Nowshera in Objection Petition No.6/4 of 1994, enhancing compensation amount of the land in question. This common judgment is proposed to dispose of both the appeals.
2. Vide Award No.4/143/LAC NSR, the Collector acquired land including land of Ihsanul Haq and others for construction of a bridge and approach road for Chowki District Nowshera. The compensation amount not acceptable to appellants Ihsanul Haq and others, they filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement in the rate of compensation with compulsory acquisition charges etc. The reference was resisted and claim of the appellants was denied. Relevant issues were formulated for trial and the parties produced pro and contra evidence. At the conclusion, by means of judgment and decree dated'14-7-1999, the learned trial Judge fixed a. Sum of Rs.10,000 per Marla as sale price of the land in question along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges plus 6% interest from 4-10-1992 till payment/deposit of the entire compensation amount.
3. The landowners namely, Ihsanul Haq and others as well as the Collector Acquisition, feeling aggrieved of the rate of compensation have approached this Court by way of filing instant appeals.
4. Mr. Tauqeer Ahmad Lodhi, Advocate, learned counsel for Ishanul Haq and others appellants in R.F.A. No.50 of 1999 biterly criticized the impugned judgment and decree and attempted to argue that the learned trial Judge had not properly appreciated the evidence and other material on record; that the report of the local commission was ignored and kept aside without any valid reasons that owners of the adjoining lands have been adequately compensated vis-a-vis the appellants and that no compensation has been awarded for standing crops and fruit trees which has resulted in manifest injustice.
5. Contrarily, Mr. Muhammad Ayaz, Deputy Advocate-General maintained that the compensation amount has been increased without any justifiable reason; that learned trial Judge has wrongly relied upon the report of Local Commissioner which itself was based on no evidence; that the market value of land is to be taken as existing on date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in view of section 23 of the same Act; that the price already fixed in the Award was quite adequate and the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the price of land keeping all the considerations in view and in the absence of solid documentary evidence learned trial Court was not justified to enhance the. Rate of land from Rs.1004 to Rs.10,000 per Marla.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record minutely. We are of the view that the compensation determined by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Judge, Nowshera is quite adequate and fair in view of the material on record and the report of the Local Commission appointed by the Court pursuant to the remand order of this Court. The Local Commissioner has given a detailed and comprehensive report which has been rightly taken into consideration and made basis of the impugned decision. There is nothing on the file to demonstrate that the Local Commission has gone out of the way and as such, his report is not worth reliance. He has taken every aspect of the case into account and has prepared a detailed and comprehensive report which cannot be ignored. It has been mainly submitted on behalf of the appellants that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from the vice of misreading and non-reading of evidence and is not sustainable under the law. The submission is devoid of force. The learned counsel has remained unable to point out any such misreading or non-appreciating evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice. Finding no fault with the impugned judgment and decree, we maintain the same and dismiss the appeals with no order as to costs.
7. We had, by our short order announced in Court on 22-3-2005 dismissed the appeals and maintained the impugned judgment and decree, for reasons to be recorded later. Above are detailed reasons for the same.