1.Shah Nihri and others kinds of irrigated landRs.1500 per marla 2.Barani Rs.1000 per marla 3.Banjar Qadeem, Salaba Rs.500 per marla.
4.Ghair Mumkin. Rs.300 per marla.JUDGMENT ' SHAHJI RAHMAN KHAN, J.---This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment/decree, dated 31-5-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Charsadda, whereby the objection petition filed by the respondents (Rehmat Gul and 32 others) was accepted and the compensation amount, fixed in the impugned Award, was enhanced in favour of respondents.
2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the instant appeal, are that National Highway Authority Department, vide Award No,25/LAC/IPMP/ NHA/98, dated 11-12-1998 had acquired land measuring 160 Kanal, 3 Marlas situated in Mauza Dheri Zardad for the Construction of Islamabad-Peshawar Motorway Project. In this context, notifications under sections 4, 17 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 15-5-1998 while proceedings under sections 9 and 10 of the Act were announced on 20-5-1998 and the Award in question was announced on 11-12-1998, wherein, the following rates were fixed for different kinds of land acquired.
' The appellants also fixed the compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15%. The respondents being dissatisfied with the above mentioned rates, filed the objection petition, which was accepted S.#Nature of Land Award amount Enhanced amount.
1. Shah Nihri and others kinds of irrigated landRs.1500 per marla Rs.6,000 per marla
2. Barani Rs.1000 per marla Rs.1500 per marla
3. Banjar Qadeem, Salaba Rs.500 per marla.
Rs.800 per marla4. Ghair Mumkin. Rs.300 per marla S.#Nature of Land Award amount Enhanced amount.
1. Shah Nihri and others kinds of irrigated landRs.1500 per marla Rs.6,000 per marla
2. Barani Rs.1000 per marla Rs.1500 per marla
3. Banjar Qadeem, Salaba Rs.500 per marla. through the impugned judgment, referred to above. Not contended therewith, the appellants have approached this Court through the instant appeal for the redressed of their grievances.
3. Mr. Sikandar Rashid Advocate, appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that while enhancing the compensation per marla, the Referee Judge has mainly based his findings on the agreement, dated 14-7-1998 and the material evidence was not taken into consideration; that the aforesaid agreement was never accepted by the appellants, therefore, the findings of the lower Courts being based on extraneous consideration alien to the facts and circumstances of the case, are liable to be reversed and by acceptance of this appeal, the impugned judgment, dated 31-5- 2005 be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Kabir Khan Advocate, appearing for the respondents submitted that the land in dispute was acquired by the appellants vide Award bearing No,25/LAC/IPMP/NHA/98, dated 11-12-1998 and the objection petition there against was also filed by "Jan Alam etc.," and the learned Referee Judge, vide his judgment and decree, dated 13-11-2001, enhanced the compensation as under:-- ' Against which judgment, the R.F.A. No,6 of 2002 was filed in this Court by the appellants, which was accordingly dismissed on 27-1-2003 and there-against, the appellants herein went in further appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide C.P.L.A. No,1148 of 2003 thereto, leave to appeal to them was refused; that in the stated circumstances, the enhancement of the compensation for the disputed land acquired vide impugned Award was upheld by Apex Court of Pakistan, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable and be dismissed with costs.
2. I have heard the arguments of counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance. It is apparent from the record that vide Award No,25/LAC/IPMP/NHA/98, dated 11-12-1998, the land in dispute was acquired by the appellant against which Award, an objection petition was filed by "Jan Alam etc.", which was decided by the Referee Judge vide judgment, dated 13-11-2001, against which, Regular First Appeal of the appellants (NHA) was rejected by this Court as well as by The Apex Court of Pakistan and the compensation was enhanced. The learned Referee Judge in this case too, in the light of evidence of either party, report of the Local Commissioner namely, Mr.. Daud Jan Advocate as well as the judgment of the superior Court referred to above, enhanced the compensation as under:-- Rs.800 per marla4. Ghair Mumkin. Rs.300 per marla This enhancement of compensation of the land acquired under Award No,25/LAC/IPMP/NHA/98, dated 11-12-1998 was unequivocally upheld by the Superior Courts, referred to above and report of the Local Commissioner, Exh.CW-1/7 is in support thereof, therefore, enhancement of compensation of the suit-land based upon the judgments of the superior Courts cannot be challenged as illegal, wrong or against the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case.
6. #Besides that the careful perusal of the record reveals that the enhancement of the compensation of the land in the impugned judgment was not based simply on the basis of agreement, which is duly signed by the Land Acquisition Collector, NHA, appellant No,1, herein rather the same is based on evidence available on record, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be objected/termed by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is result of extraneous consideration and not based on the material available on record. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, dated 31-5-2005 which is inconsonance with the judgments of the superior Courts, therefore, the instant appeal is liable to dismissal.
7. For the foregoing discussion, finding no merit and substance in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.