ljaz-ul-Hassan, J.--This Regular First Appeal (RFA No, 62/99), filed by the Government of NWFP through Collector Land Acquisition, Nowshera and RFA No, 64/99, filed by Muhammad Iqbal and others, land owners, are directed against the common judgment dated 1.7.1999 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Judge, Nowshera, raising compensation for the acquired land, from a sum of Rs, 12592/- per marla to Rs, 20,000/-per marla, with usual compulsory acquisition charges and interest etc:
2. The Government of NWFP was in need of acquiring some land for construction of a bridge and approach road for "Chowki", District Nowshera and in this respect vide Award No, 4/143/LAC NSR, the Collector acquired land including land of Muhammad Iqbal appellant measuring 19 kanals 17 marlas, bearing Khasra No, 1/563 and 1/564 situate in the area of Bara Banda. Feeling dissatisfied with the rate of compensation, Muhammad Iqbal filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 praying for compensation at the rate of Rs, 25,000/- per marla with compulsory acquisition charges etc. The learned Acquisition Judge, Nowshera enhanced the compensation to Rs, 20,000/- per marla with allied charges by means of judgment and decree dated 2.5.1995, passed in Reference Petition No, 5/4. Regular first appeals were filed, one by the land owners and the other by the Government of NWFP, which were registered as RFA No, 65/95 and FRA No,62/65 in Peshawar High Court and both the appeals were accepted, vide decision dated 2.12.1997 by "a consolidated judgment recorded in RFA No, 65/95 and the case was remanded to the Referee Court for determination of the potential value of the acquired land for reasons recorded in para-4 of the judgment. After remand the Referee Court awarded the same compensation of Rs, 20,000/- per marla vide impugned judgment and decree. The land owners and the Collector being partly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the valuation of the Reference Court, filed instant appeals, which are before us for consideration.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant in RFA No, 62/99, has taken exception to the enhancement of the amount of compensation by learned Referee Judge and attempted to argue that the rate of compensation has been increased without any justifiable reason and report of the Local Commissioner has been made basis of the impugned judgment in total disregard to the material on file.
4. As against that Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Advocate for appellant Muhammad Iqbal in RFA No, 64/99 reiterated that learned Referee Judge undervalued the land in question ignoring its market price and future potentialities and the sole criteria for the assessment of compensation for the land acquired was neither one yearly average price nor one year earlier than the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned counsel submitted that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated and assessed which has adversely prejudiced the interest of his client.
5. We have gone through the entire record of the case with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that the compensation determined by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Judge, Nowshera is adequate and fair and the appeals deserve outright dismissal. The learned judge has taken into consideration the entire material on record as well as the report of the local commissioner appointed in compliance with the remand order of this Court, to form his opinion, regarding market price of land in question. The local commissioner has taken pains and prepared the report which is comprehensive and has rightly been made basis of the impugned decision. The submission of the learned counsel for the parties that the impugned judgment and decree is the outcome of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which has resulted in manifest injustice and cannot be allowed to remain intact, is equally without force.
Despite having been asked repeatedly to highlight any piece of evidence which was not considered or ignored by the learned Referee Judge while recording the impugned judgment and decree, the learned counsel remained unable to do so.
6. Pursuant to above, the appeals fail, which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
We had by our short order dated 22.3.2005 dismissed the appeals for reasons to be recorded later.
Above are the detailed reasons.