' IJAZ UL HASSAN KHAN, J.---At the instance of Land Acquisition Collector, Islamabad Peshawar Motorway Project, Risalpur land measuring 129 kanals 8 marlas situated in Mauza Nissata (Khas), Tehsil and District Charsadda, including the land of respondents was acquired for the construction of Islamabad Peshawar Motorway Project, vide Award No.98, dated 17-1-2001, wherein the compensation was fixed Rs.9000 per marla for commercial/residential land and Rs.1760.66 for 'Shah Nehri' type of land. The Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 20-9-1999, which was followed by a corrigendum, dated 16-10-2000 increasing the area of land to 263 kanals 6 marlas. The proceedings thereupon were initiated and finally the impugned Award, categorizing the acquired land as 'Shah Nehri' kind of land was announced. A sum of Rs.9000 along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges was recommended. Mamraiz Khan and others, respondents filed Objection Petition claiming the value of acquired property @ of Rs.10,000 per marla, alleging that adjoining property was acquired by the appellants at the rate of Rs.9000 per marla, which land is less valuable as compared to the acquired land. It was also alleged that the objectors were not awarded any compensation amount for the trees standing there on the acquired land at the time bf its acquisition and were also not paid any compensation for the construction raised thereon. In view of the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were formulated for trial:--
(1) Whether objectors have got a case of action?
(2) Whether objection petition is defective in its present form?
(3) Whether objection petition is bad for mis/non-joinder of the necessary parties?
(4) Whether objection petition is within time?
(5) Whether objectors are estopped to sue?
(6) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the present objection petition?
(7) Whether in case of dismissal of the instant petition, respondents will be entitled to the costs?
(8) Whether the disputed acquired area possessed higher potential value and the same has been under-assessed?
(9) Whether objectors are entitled to the enhancement of rate of the acquired land?
(10) Relief.
2. At the conclusion of trial, learned Referee Judge, keeping in view the usefulness of the acquired land, its utility and high potential value for commercial and residential purposes, its accessibility to the District Headqurater Hospital, Charsadda and its proximity to Nowshera Mardan Road, determined a sum of Rs.14,000 per marla as compensation of the land in question, through judgment and decree, dated 30-5-2005, which has been impugned in this appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Sikandar Rashid, Advocate attempted to argue that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court suffers from the vice of misreading and non- reading of evidence on record and the amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs.9000 to Rs.14000 per marla, without any justifiable reason and in total disregard to the material on record. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel submitted that learned Referee Judge has not kept in view the criteria and principles governing the determination of compensation to be paid for the acquired land, which has resulted in manifest injustice.
4. Representing the respondents, Mr. Gulsadbar Khan, Advocate, rebutted the arguments advanced by his 'adversary and supported the impugned judgment and decree whole heartedly, maintaining that the evidence on record has been appreciated in its true perspective and the amount of compensation has been enhanced for valid and sound reasons.
5. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been heard in detail in the light of the material on the file.
6. It needs no reiteration that while determining the amount of compensation, Court is to consider evidence brought on the record by the parties and further Land Acquisition Collector while determining compensation of acquired land has also to consider the potential and future prospective of land in addition to one year average. While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the past sale should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its potentiality may also be determined by examining other facts.
7. An assessm ent of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put and the impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on having regard to all these factors.
8. Having adjudged the matter from all angles, I am of the view that learned Referee Judge adverted to every aspect of the case, rightly decided the same and rendered a reasoned judgment, which is not open to legitimate exception. Although it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment is the outcome of misreading and non- reading of evidence, yet the learned counsel despite his best efforts could not point out any portion of the evidence, which has either been misread or non-read by the trial Court.
' Resultantly, finding no substance in this appeal, I dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.