' MUHAMMAD QAIM JAN KHAN, J.--- The instant Civil Appeal No,1920 as well as connected Civil Appeal No,1921 of 2006 shall be disposed of by single judgment as these appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 13-9-2005, the questions of law, the Award, the subject-matter, the facts and the parties are the same.
2. Short facts of the case are that vide Award No,1, dated 19-12-1999 the appellant-Department acquired certain land in village Zafarkey in Tehsil and District Kasur for the construction of Turkwind Branch Drain RDO-45630. The land of the respondents measuring 37 Kanals, 5 Marlas situated in the said village was acquired in the same Award. The Collector per instructions of the Board of Revenue, Lahore fixed the price of the land at Rs,9,419.20 per acre. The respondents-owners being dissatisfied with the said price preferred Reference through Collector in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kasur. The Reference was vehemently contested by the appellant-Department and on the divergent pleas of the respective parties, the Referee Court framed almost 4 issues apart from relief, the evidence pro and contra was recorded and after hearing the respective counsel for the parties and going through the record, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur vide his judgment, dated 7-1-2003 partially accepted the Reference, set aside the Award and fixed the compensation at Rs,5,000 per Marla of land measuring 37 Kanals, 5 Marlas along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest on the excess amount.
3. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Referee Court, the present appellants as well as the respondents filed Regular First Appeals Nos.247 and 420 of 2003 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore and a learned Division Bench of it after hearing the respective counsel for the parties and going through the entire record available, while dismissing the appeal of the appellants partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and enhanced the price from Rs,5,000 to Rs,7,500 per Marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest on the excess amount from the date of delivery of possession till the date of payment of the said amount in Court in terms of sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide impugned judgment. ,dated 13- 9-2005. Hence these appeals by leave.
4. The contentions of the appellant-Department are that the learned High Court has fallen into error in enhancing the amount of compensation on the basis of award and that the judgment in a different case in respect of a different property which was read as evidence, was contrary to the provisions of Article 56 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. He further argued that the price fixed by the Collector was correct and has been fixed per instructions of the Board of Revenue, Lahore; further argued that no cogent evidence has been brought on record regarding the fruit bearing and Sheesham trees; added that the land acquired is agr4icultural and not commercial in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents mainly argued that the nature of the land acquired is commercial, it is located on the main road known as Raiwind-Kot Radha Kishan Road and its price has been fixed on the instructions of the Board of Revenue, Lahore which is illegal; that the potential value of the land has not been ascertained by the Collector; further argued that fruit bearing and Sheesham trees, have been totally ignored by the Collector and the value of the respondents' land has been diminished virtually as the land adjacent to road has been acquired by the department and stressed that the price of the land acquired is more than Rs,15,000 per Marla; added that similar type of land has been acquired for WAPDA Grid Station within a radius of just 500 meters from the land in question and its price has been fixed as Rs,5,000 per Marla which was later on enhanced to Rs,10,000 per Marla by the Senior Civil Judge, Kasur.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record with their assistance. In the instant case Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 3-2-1985, the possession was taken on 12-3-1985 and the award was announced on 17-5-2000. The appellant-Department has no solid reasons as to why the Award was kept pending for 15/16 long years and thus, depriving the respondents from the fruits of their land without any cogent reasons. The respondents-owners have produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. In this behalf the statements of Patwaris i.e, Muhammad Akram, A.W.1 and Muhammad Arif A.W.2 are crystal clear and they have admitted the commercial nature of the acquired property, the price of the adjacent land of the same nature lying in the same locality can be taken in consideration and that fact was not contrary to the provisions of Article 56 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat order, 1984. The appellant-Department by not objecting the similar Award for a Grid Station in a way admitted the stance of the respondents. As regards the fruit bearing and Sheesham trees, the two Courts have rightly ignored the same because no plausible and cogent evidence in support thereof is available on record. No illegality, irregularity or any sort of misreading or non-reading of evidence is apparent from the judgment of the High Court and instead the judgment is based on sound and plausible reasons. So in the circumstances, these two appeals having no legal force are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.