' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.-- This judgment shall dispose of R.F.As. Nos.393, 402 and 532 of 2000 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are that Mst. Surayya Mehmood (appellant in R.F.A. No,532 of 2000) and Province of Punjab and WAPDA (appellants in R.F.A. No,402 of 2000) had filed two references before learned trial Court regarding Award No,277/LAC/AG549/88, dated 30-6- 1988 in respect of the land, acquired for extension of 132 K.V. Grid Station in Village Androon Kasur.
Mst. Surayya Mehmood, appellant, stated that WAPDA got acquired her land, measuring 32 Kanals, 7 Marlas for extension of 132 K.V. Gird Station and award was announced on 30-6-1988, whereby, Land Acquisition Collector (L.A.C.) awarded her compensation at the rate of Rs,6,000 per Marla being owner of land. She maintained that L.A.C. Had not evaluated the land keeping in view that disputed land was situated within the _Municipal Limits; that the same was residential and commercial and that it was located on the main Lahore Ferozepur Road, opposite the offices of Tehsil, District Council and Sessions Court etc. ' She claimed compensation @ Rs,13,000 per Marla. However, the appellants in second reference stated that price @ Rs,6,000 per Marla was based on memo. No,1585- 88/1482-S-iv, dated 8-6- 1988, issued by Board of Revenue, Punjab, but said memo. Was issued with the connivance of officials of Board of Revenue without having approval from the competent authority, therefore, award was exorbitant and the same did not reflect the actual market price of the land. Learned trial Court framed issues; recoded evidence of the parties and accepted the reference, brought by Mst. Surayya Mehmood, appellant and awarded her compensation @ Rs,8,000 per Marla, whereas, reference, filed by Province of Punjab and WAPDA, was dismissed vide judgment dated 27-5-2000.
Hence these appeals.
3. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above, land owned by Mst. Surayya Mehmood, appellant in (R.F.A. No,532 of 2000), was acquired for the construction of 132 K.V. Grid Station.
' However, awarded her compensation at the rate of Rs,6,000 per Marla. She filed reference and learned trial Court enhanced the same to Rs,8,000 per Marla. The perusal of record shows that she (Mst. Surayya Mehmood) examined Manzoor Eiahi as A.W.1, who stated that suit-land was located on main Ferozepur Lahore Road and that Chowk Shehbaz was at distance of one Furlong, whereas, Munir Shaheed Colony was at a distance of two Furlongs. He further deposed that Rest House etc. Are also adjoining the disputed land. A.W.2 also supported the version of appellant. The statements of A.W.1 and A.W.2 are convincing and confidence-inspiring and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. On the other hand, Land Acquisition Collector appeared as R.W.6 and stated that suit-land was not residential or commercial. Learned trial Court considered the evidence of parties and awarded her compensation @ Rs,8,000 per Marla. It is in evidence that land in question is located on the main road (Ferozpur Lahore Road), and that other residential colonies and Government Offices are also situated near the same. Learned trial Court in paras. Nos. 35, 42, 44 and 46 of impugned judgment observed that:- "Land Acquisition Collector appeared as his own witness in Ist reference as R.W.6. And stated that at the time of acquisition the land was neither residential nor commercial. He stated that Tehsil Office, District Council Office and Courts are not located near this land. He stated that he inspected the site only in the year 1997 while at page 7 of the Award he lays down that he inspected the site.
The land no doubt is located on the main Lahore-Kasur road in a built up area. In the written reply it is also written that land is situated near main Ferozpur Road and Tehsil, District Council, Sessions Court offices are located at some distance. In this way the urban and commercial character of land is an admitted fact on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out specific abadis located near the land in question. The witness made the evasive replies. His statement is against his own pleadings. The petitioner examined Manzoor Elahi A.W.1 who deposed that land in question is located on the main LahoreForozepur Road. On the northern side there is Chowk Shahbaz Road at a distance of about one Furlong. Munir Shaheed Colony situated at a distance of about two Furlongs. The rest house adjoins on the southern side. There is Ali Ahmad Shah Colony on the western side. The respondents failed to shake the credit of this witness by way of cross- examination."
"The land in question is situated at a distance of a few yard from the Sessions Court, across the road there is cantonment area, the Tehsil offices, the District Council offices and the Civil Courts are situated at a few yards' distance. Highway Rest House is adjoining the land in question. Next to the Rest House, is Tehsil road and on this road there exists Canal colony which is only a few yards from the land in question. Leaving aside the remaining area of about one hundred Kanal owned by the petitioner (owner) there are thickly-populated abadies of the city on the western side. On the northern side, about two furlongs there is Munir Shaheed Colony which is top class colony of Kasur city."
"The learned counsel for the petitioner referred the letter Exh.A.5 dated 8-4-1988 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur to the Commissioner, Lahore Division wherein he recommended that the present market value of the land is Rs,8,000 per Marla. Although the price recommended by the Deputy Commissioner Kasur is much low and it was recommended in the absence of the petitioner, yet respondents have brought no justification on the record to prove as to how and under what Circumstances the Deputy Commissioner resiled from his previous recommendation and about a month thereafter he recommended the price at Rs,6,000 per Marla. This very much speaks about the mala fide of the officers of the Government."
"The petitioner has brought on record an instance of sale of land in close proximity to the land in question. The petitioner has also produced the schedule of rates prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur for this land for the year, 1991, which prescribes the rate for purpose of stamp duty. The rate for commercial land is Rs,20,000 per Marla. Although this rate has been pitched very low, but nevertheless it speaks much about the potentiality of the land in question. It is stated that around the land in question there is no land available for sale because on three sides the offices, the cantonment area, the rest house, the old grid station, the canal colony etc. Are located. On the back of the land in question the remaining land of the petitioner is located which could not be sold because of the grid station and large number of supply lines having been constructed over there."
' As such, it is clear that learned trial Court decided the references after considering the entire material available on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.
5. As stated above, learned trial Court has also considered letter dated 8-4-1988 (Exh.A.5), sent by Deputy Commissioner, Kasur to the Commissioner, Lahore Division, according to which, he had recommended the market price of the land Rs,8,000 per Marla. Even otherwise, as mentioned above, the compensation awarded by learned trial Court is reasonable and the same is not excessive as land in question is situated within the municipal limits and is adjacent to residential and commercial buildings.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that these appeals have no force and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.