Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--This appeal has been filed by WAPDA through its Chairman and two others, appellants, against judgment dated 21.11.2006 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, allowing appeal of respondent, assailing judgment dated 15-5-2001 announced by Senior Civil Judge/Referee Judge, Gujranwala, rejecting reference petition of respondent in respect of his acquired land.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of instant appeal briefly stated are, that land measuring 71 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Sundar Singh, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, including the land of Nek Muhammad respondent measuring 18 kanals and 5 marlas in the same `Mauza', was acquired by WAPDA for construction of 132 KV Grid-station Hafizabad Road, Gujranwala. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by Collector Gujranwala vide a notification dated 30.1.1993, published in the Government Gazette on 30.1.1993. Joint notification under Sections 17(4) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was approved by Commissioner, Gujranwala, on 5.12.1993 and it was published in the Government Gazette on 8.12.1993. The award was announced by the Commissioner Gujranwala on 14.2.1996. The compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs, 2000/- per marla. The respondent filed petition under Section 18 of the Act, seeking reference to the trial Court for determination of value of his land, as he was not satisfied with the value of the land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The matter was referred to the Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala. After framing necessary issues and recording evidence, learned Referee Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.2001 rejected the reference petition as stated and mentioned above. Nek Muhammad preferred appeal there-against before the learned High Court, which has been accepted vide judgment impugned herein, enhancing rate of compensation of 17 f marlas of his acquired land from Rs, 2000/- to Rs, 15,000/- per marla and compulsory acquisition charges from 15% to 20%.
3. Mr. Aurangzeb Mirza, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants attempted to argue that impugned judgment suffers from the vice of misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record, as learned High Court has not properly appreciated the award given on the basis of the actual nature of the land acquired and. its prevalent market value assessed as per law and that learned High Court has proceeded on wrong premises in considering the element of compensation and has not followed the law for enhancing the compulsory acquisition charges.
4. Sheikh Masood Akhtar, learned AOR representing respondent supported the impugned judgment and stated that the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity to qualify for being interfered by this Court. He argued that learned High Court has enhanced the compensation properly while assessing the value of the land in question, its location, potentiality and prices on the report of Halaqa Patwari and also on one year average during the period the land was acquired. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Fazal Haq College Versus Said Rasan and others, (PLD 2003 SC 480).
5. A perusal of the record would reveal that land of respondent situated on Gujranwala and Rawalpindi Bypass, within the municipal limits of Gujranwala, was acquired by WAPDA for construction of Grid-Station. As per Ex.A-2, the value of 17 marlas of land was shown as Rs, 45,000/- per marla and the value of similarly situated land of remaining acquired land was fixed at Rs, 3450/- per marla. It has come on record that 1734 marlas of the land acquired is situated on the Bypass and rest of the land is situated on the side lane in the back. The settled principle of law is that while determining the price of compensation, the Referee Court should consider evidence on record and to see whether the Land Acquisition Collector has considered the nature, location and future potential of the land acquired, in addition to the one year average price. The learned High Court has enhanced the compensation amount and compulsory acquisition charges for valid and cogent reasons which cannot be successfully challenged. Para 7 of the impugned judgment is reproduced herein below:-- "From the evidence and material on the record, we find that land was acquired at the request of WAPDA a company for construction of Grid Station. AW. 1 Patwari stated that the total land acquired including land of appellant is situated on the Gujranwala and Rawalpindi Bypass.
Appellant while appearing as AW.2 stated that land measuring 171A marlas out of total acquired land is situated at the Bypass and the value of the same is Rs, 45,000/- per marla and produced Ex.A-2 to support his contention. Thereafter that DC rate of the similarly situated land was fixed at Rs, 3450/- per marla when price awarded was Rs,2000/- per marla. RW. 1 Land Acquisition Collector WAPDA stated in the award announced by the Commissioner Gujranwala price of the land situated on the front was fixed at the rate of Rs, 3174.50 and other land was assessed at Rs, 2000/-. In the cross-examination it is admitted that 17f marlas of the appellant is situated on the Bypass. Rest of the land is situated on the side lane in the back. He shows ignorance about the DC rate to be fixed as Rs, 3450/- per marla. Documents R-1 to R-10 were produced. No document showing that DC rate was less then 3450/- per marlas was produced. No evidence in rebuttal to A-2 was produced.
Ex.P.3 Aikas Shajra produced by the respondent shows that Khasra No,348 from which sale of two mutations was made for 90000/- in the year 1991 is situated on Gujranwala Rawalpindi Bypass and Khasra No, 335 measuring 4 kanals owned by the appellant is also situated on Gujranwala Rawalpindi Bypass."
7. In view of the above, we find that while enhancing the rate of compensation and compulsory acquisition charges of the land in question, learned High Court has appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and no case of misreading or non-reading of evidence is made out: Learned counsel for the appellants despite having addressed lengthy arguments, could not point out any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment inviting interference by this Court. The appeal, having found, without substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.