RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.---These Civil Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 6-7-2000, passed by the learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, whereby R.F.As. Nos.37 of 1993 and 55 of 1994 filed respectively by the land owners and Sarhad Development Authority, against the judgment and decree of the Land Acquisition Judge/District Judge, Haripur, were dismissed, against which the appellants Government of N.-W.F.P. (now Government of KPK), Sarhad Development Authority and Sardar Muhammad Ash of (deceased) through LRs,. (land owners) have filed three separate Civil Appeals. Before this Court. As identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals and decided vide a single judgment, therefore, we propose to decided these appeals through this judgment.
2. The precise relevant facts of the case are that on the request of Sarhad Development Authority, Govt. Of N.-W.F.P. (Now KPK) Peshawar in order to establish an Industrial Estate Land situated in Village Dingi, Tehsil and District - Haripur, comprising of Khasra Nos.398/2, 398/1, 398, 397, 395, 393, 398/395/1, 398/7, 397/6, 298/5, 398/4, 398/3, 403, 401, 40Q, 399, 398/10, 398/9, 410, 409, 408, 407, 406, 405, 404, 497, 496, 414, 413, 412, 411, 501, 500, 499 and 498 measuring 2940 kanals and 1 marla, was to be acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad. Later on, as the requirementsof the. Sarhad Development Authority hereinafter referred to (SDA) was curtailed, which intended to acquire only an area measuring 2623 kanals and 5 marlas. Accordingly, in view of such a factual aspect the requisite Notification to such effect was issued by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Thereafter a combined Notification under sections 6 and 17 of the 'Act' during the acquisition proceedings was issued on 18-9-1989 by the Commissioner Hazara Division, Abbottabad in respect of the land comprising of Khasra Nos.395/1,' 397/1, 398/2, 298/3, 398/4, 398/5, 398/6, 398/7, 398/8, 398/9, 298/10, 399 to 400, 401/1, 402/1, 405 to 410, 411/1, 412 to 414, 494 to 501 and finally for the acquired land Award was announced on 3-1-1990.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the compensation of the acquired land as follows:-- "Kund ------------ Rs.3537/44 per kanal Maira ------------ Rs.2653/10 per kanal Rakkar ------------ Rs.884/37 per kanal Banjar Qadeem ------------ Rs.442/18 per kanal Ghair Mumkin ------------ Rs.442/18 per kanal with 15 per cent compulsory acquisition interest from 22-10-1989 to 3-1-1990 i,e, announced.
Rs,.3537/44 per kanal Rs,.2653/10 per kanal Rs,.884/37 per kanal Rs,.442/18 per kanal Rs,.442/18 per kanal charges and 6 per cent simple the date on which Award was
4. The landowners feeling themselves aggrieved and dissatisfied the amount of compensation and the classification of land made by the Land Acquisition Collector, filed Objection Petition No,20/4 of 1990 on 16-5-1990 before the Land Acquisition Collector, which matter was referred to the learned Land Acquisition Judge/District Judge, Haripur for determination.
' Also, the (SDA), one of the appellants before this Court filed Cross-Objections No,44/4 under section 22-A of the 'Act' in the Court of learned Land Acquisition Judge, Haripur on 22-11-1990.
5. The learned Referee Court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them dismissed both the Objection Petitions vide judgment and decree dated 5-12-1992.
' The land owners still feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Acquisition Judge dated 5-12-1992, filed RFA No,37 of 1993 before the learned High Court while SDA also filed RFA No,55 of 1994 against the judgment and decree of the learned Referee Court, dismissed vide a common judgment impugned herein.
6. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants in C.A.No,2076 of 2001 contended that the learned High Court ignored the evidence produced in respect of the average market value of the land in question, which did not justify enhancement of the rate of compensation determined vide impugned judgment. The documents and the evidence with regard to the average value of the land in question in respect of Kot Najibullah was produced by Patrwari Halqa and the mutations relating to the same area showing average market value of land covering a period of one year was not brought under consideration. In fact only one corner .Of the land in question was contiguous to Kot Najibullah. The learned counsel next submitted that the acquired land is not located adjacent to the main road but is situated on a link road connecting villages. The Land Acquisition Collector relied only on four selective mutations and the value of the land was required to be determined as it stood before the issuance of Notification under section 4 of the Act. The enhancement was made merely on the basis of potential value of the. Land in question and the minus factors were not considered. The enhancement of the rate of compensation per kanal determined vide impugned judgment is not based on correct assessment of the evidence on record. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the judgments of this Court in the case Khalilur Rehman v. The Land Acquisition Collector Abbottabad and another(PLD 1990 Peshawar 88), Sardar Abdur Raul Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others (1991 SCMR 2164) and Maqbool Ahmed Fatehally and others v. The Collector, District Lasbella and others (1992 SCMR 2342).
7. Mr. Gui Zarin Kiyani, learned Advocate Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No,1222 of 2001 after having given the brief resume of the entire facts of the case and by assisting the Court submitted that geographical boundaries alone of , the acquired land would not furnish the sole basis for determining the market value of land. According to the learned counsel all relevant and essential factors were brought under consideration including five years and one year average market value of land, which is, just a criteria laid down by the Board of Revenue for the guidance of the Land Acquisition Collectors. The learned counsel pointed out that mere mentioning of sale price in a mutation is not the proof of actual market value of the land sold through mutation to a buyer and the settled law is that the landowner to be adequately compensated. Reference has been made to the reported judgments i,e, The Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi v. Lieut. General Wajid Ali Khan Burki (PLD 1960 Lahore 469), Land Acquisition Collector-II, Tarbela Dam Resettlement Organisation, WAPDA and 2 others v. Haji Hakim Khan and 41 others (PLD 1976 Peshawar 50), North- West Frontier Province v. Shad Muhammad Khan and others (1983 CLC 2576) and LiyarKhan v. Land Acquisition Collector/A. C., Swabi (2003 YLR 3287).
8. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, after having given the brief history of the case argued that in view of the location of the acquired land duly reflected in the report of the Local Commission, it was wrongly observed that no cogent evidence in support of the Objection Petition was led by the land owners and fixation of the flat rate of compensation per kanal was not justified in the circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel the land in question is a very valuable property in view of its location being adjacent to the Hattar Industrial Estate. The principles and factors including the law laid down by this Court, was not kept in view by the learned High. Court and the evidence on record, which essentially required the land owners to have been adequately compensated for their land acquired by the beneficiary department, keeping in view the actual market value of the land. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the reported judgments i,e, Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another v. Government of N.- W.F.P. Through Collector Mardan and others (2007 SCMR 1069), Commandant Indus Rangers and others v. Zaheer Muhammad Khan (2007 SCMR 1817), Land Acquisition Collector, Islamabad and another v. Alauddin and others (PLD 2008 Peshawar 3), Collector of Land Acquisition, Abbottabad and others v. Alhaj Sardar Bahadur Khan and others (2009 SCMR 224), Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway_ Authority, Lahore and another v. Javed Malik and others (2009 SCMR. 634), Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and others v. Gohar-urRehman Abbasi (2009 SCMR 771) and Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur and others v. Sh. Hassan Ali and others (PLD 2009 SC 16).
9. The contentions put forth on behalf of the parties by their learned counsel have been considered in the light of the record of the case and the impugned judgment gone through carefully with their assistance. The learned High Court having examined and brought under consideration the entire evidence available with the Land Acquisition Collector and adduced by the parties before the learned Land Acquisition Judge, enhanced the compensation amount of the acquired land per kanal, keeping in view the nature of different parcels of land based on reasons enumerated in para No,18 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "Firstly, the acquired land is situated within two main reads, i,e, Taxila Rawalpindi Road and Haripur, Rawalpindi Road.
' Secondly, it is adjacent to phase-4 of Hattar Industrial Estate which had already been established for installation of industries.
' Thirdly, the acquired land consists of one compact block situated close to the inhabited area.
' Fourthly, the acquired land had great potential value for Industrial and Commercial purposes for construction of buildings, markets, residential colonies and houses being adjacent to phase-4 of Hattar Industrial Estate. It also had potentiality for irrigation as the canal is situated 1000/1100 feet away from the limits of Mauza Dingi as stated by Revenue EAC in his report Exh.R.W.1 /D1. It is one mile away from Khasra No,27 acquired by the Government for irrigation purposes as is clear from statement of Patwari Halqa. Had the land been not acquired, it would have been irrigation kind of land by now and its value would have increased tremendously.
' Fifthly, the value of the adjacent area (Kot Najibullah) which was simultaneously acquired for the same purpose for which different formula of compensation has been adopted by the land acquisition collector. The landowners of the adjoining area have been given compensation on higher rates as compared to the landowners of Mauza Dingi.
' Sixthly, this Court while deciding R.F.A.No,24 of 1992, has kept intact the compensation fixed by Collector. For land acquired for phase-4 of Hattar Industrial Estate, i,e, Kund at the rate of Rs,.9679.20 per kanal, Maira Rs,.7259.40 per kanal, Rakkar ' Rs,.4839..60 per kanal, Bangar. Qadeem/Ghair Mumkin IA. Rs,.2419.00 p.k. Irrigated Rs,.36520 per kanal."
10. The learned High Court after having examined the entire evidence concluded that there is ample evidence available on record to show that the acquired land was not irrigated at the time of its acquisition by referring to the report Exh.RW-1/D-1 of Revenue EAC, that the canal ended about 1000/1100 feet away from the place wherefrom the village Dingi starts. Also, Patwari Halqa, stated that Khasra No,27 was acquired for irrigation purpose, which is situated one mile away from the acquired property and the water for irrigation purpose could not reach to the acquired land, was considered. The learned High Court came to the conclusion that the water for irrigatioh purpose could not reach to the acquired lands and that Exh.R.W.1/D-3, dated 18-12-1989 issued by XEN irrigation negated the plea that the 'acquired land was at the relevant time was being irrigated coupled with the statement of Roshan Khan 0.W.5 that the acquired land was not irrigated at all.
The effect of documents Exh.O.W.5/5 to 5/7 Chak Bandi Khasra ,Girdawari was also examined besides other documents tendered in evidence by this witness and were given due effect to and thus it was concluded that the acquired land was not irrigated at the time of its acquisition. With regard to the compensation determined by. The Land Acquisition Collector, on which the Award was based and the entire evidence was brought under consideration and examined in depth by the learned High Court, discussed in paras Nos. 12 to. 15 of the impugned judgment. Keeping in view of the Plus and Negative factors while fixing the rate of compensation the following were kept in mind, reproduced hereinbelow:- "(i) First: The market value of the land at the date of the publication of the Notification under section 4, subsection (I),
(ii) Secondly: The damage sustained by the person interested, by reasons of the-taking of an standing crops or trees, which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
(iii) Thirdly; The damage (if any) sustained by the person interested at the time of the land, by reasons severing such land from his other land;
(iv) Fourthly: The damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time ofthe .Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; Fifthly: If, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and Sixthly: The damage (if any), bona fide resulting from diminution of the profit of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land.
11. The learned High_ Court also kept in view the law and the principles laid down by this Court with regard to the determination of compensation, in the judgments reported in Banaras Khan and others v. Chairman, WAPDA and others (PLD 1982 SC 100), Fazalur Ramzan and others v. General Manager, S.LD.B. And another (PLD 1986 SC 158), Mrs. Gunj Khatoon and another v. The Province of Sindh through Secretary, Revenue Department, Karachi and another (1987 SCMR 2084), Siddiq and others v. The Deputy Commissioner, East Karachi and another (1988 SCMR 87), Malik Aman and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (PLD 1988 SC 32) and Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others (1991 SCMR 2164); considered and applied the following principles:- "I. That an entry in the Revenue Record as to the nature of the land may not be conclusive, for example, land may be conclusive, for example, land may be shown in Girdawari as Maira, but because of the existence of a well near the land, makes it capable of becoming Chahi land; II. That while determining the potentials of the land, the use of which the land is capable of being out, ought to be considered. III. That the market value of the land is normally to be taken as existing on the date of publication of the Notification under section 4(1) of the Act but for determining the same, the prices on which similar land situated in the vicinity was sold during the preceding 12 months and not 6-7 years may be considered including other factors like potential value etc."
' Keeping in view the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the learned High Court in the light of the record of the case came to the conclusion that the same were not kept in mind by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and the Land Acquisition Judge, while determining the compensation amount nor the criteria and the principles governing such matters enunciated by this Court in the above noted reported judgments were considered for the reasons mentioned in para No,6 of the impugned judgment, borne on record. The contentions advanced before us on behalf of the parties cannot be adjudged in isolation, which aspects of the case have been duly attended to, dilated upon and decided in the over all context of evidence, law and the principles laid down by this Court in the reported judgments cited on behalf of the parties and referred to in the impugned judgment by scrutinizing the evidence on record in reaching to the conclusion arrived at with a right approach, to which no exception can be taken. None of the learned counsel for the appellants has been able to point out specifically with reference to the evidence on record in the light of the principles laid down by this court in the above referred reported judgments; any material piece of evidence as having been misread or misconstrued having the-effect of varying the decision rendered by the learned High Court.
12. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, these appeals being devoid of any substance, are dismissed with no order as to costs.