- ALI BAQARBAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2003 recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock, whereby he accepted the reference petition holding the petitioner to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per kanal alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest.
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the filing of this regular first appeal are that the land measuring 10 Kanals of respondent situated at Khasra No. 5266/2, khatta No. 65/564 in Mazua Shamasabad Tehsil and District Attock was acquired by appellant No. 3 forcibly and announced award dated 25.06.1995 illegally, without hearing her for which she filed objections which were rejected without any plausible reason. The property was acquired for M.R.F, PAC, Kamra and the price of land was incorrectly fixed at Rs. 25467.20/- per Kanal for Maira kind of land alongwith 15% compulsory charges and 8% compound interest. Out of land measuring 22 kanals, 17 marlas bearing Khasra No. 5266 situated at the same Mauza 12 kanals, 17 marlas was acquired through award dated 16.06.1992 and the price of which was fixed at. Rs. 61,179/- per kanal by the Senior Civil Judge, Attock.
The payment of land measuring 10 Kanals amounting to Rs. 1,68,86-85 was acquired through award dated 25.06.1995 which was yet to be paid. It is alleged in the plaint that the Land Acquisition Collector/appellant No. 3 has also failed to ascertain the status, nature, location and potential value of the property by ignoring the rule, regulation and the decision made by the superior Courts in this regard.
3. The reference was contested by the appellants by filing written reply and raising objections i.e. The respondent has no cause of action to file the reference petition; that she is estopped by her words and conduct; and the reference petition is time-barred.
4. In view of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claim. The learned Senior Civil Judge accepted the reference petition vide his order dated 14.05.2003: which is being impugned herein. Hence this regular first appeal.
5. Learned Standing Counsel representing me appellants contends that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below on the framed issues are the result of misreading and non- reading and based on erroneous appreciation of evidence; that, the material evidence and documents placed on record by the appellants have not been considered; that proceedings of the Court below were illegal and had suffered from material irregularities resulting into great miscarriage of justice; that the issues framed by the Trial Court were not in accordance with the pleadings and therefore, the controversy could not be properly resolved; that reasoning given by the Trial Court overlooks the law and evidence available on record is not sustainable on the face of record; that the judgment passed by the Court below is contrary to law, comm non judice and suffers from material irregularities.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned judgment submits that respondent No. 3 did not assess the correct market value of the land as existed on the date of notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; that without considering the potential value of the land under acquisition the compensation was fixed on the basis of annual average price calculated by the revenue staff.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
8. The finding on the issue No. 4 is based on evidence and appreciation of law as the earlier award of 12 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land acquired was announced and approved by the Referee Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereafter, Regular First Appeal was dismissed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the said judgment in PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Collector, Attock v. Engr. JAMII, AHMAD MALIK and others (2000 SCM R 870), relevant Para reads as under:--- "Following are the principles for assessing the future prospectus of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in terms of Section 23:-
(i) That ally entry in the revenue record as to the nature of the land may not 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 for becoming Chahi land.
(ii) That while determining the potentials of the land, the use of which the land is capable of being put, 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 price on which similar land situated in the vicinity was sold during the preceding 12 months and not 6-7 years back, may be considered including other factors like potential value etc."
Therefore, the amount so finally determined is Rs. 61,179/-. The claim of the appellant that it should be less than Rs. 65000/- per kanal with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest is not tenable in the eyes of law as well as facts. The reasons being firstly, the amount with a difference of Rs. 3821/- is a natural enhancement between 1991, the year when possession was taken, and 1995 when the award was announced and secondly, this amount has been approved by the apex Court.
7. No illegality or misreading of evidence is found' in the impugned judgment, therefore, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
R.F.A. Dismissed.