' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---The instant regular first appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 25/11/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/ Referee Court, Charsadda whereby he enhanced the rate of compensation of the acquired land from Rs,1500 to Rs,8000 per Marla alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges.
2. Brief facts of the case are that vide Award No,58/LAC/IPMP/NHA/2K dated 7-4-2000, the Land Acquisition Collector Peshawar-Islamabad Motorway National Highway Authority, Peshawar had acquired land measuring 560 Kanal 19 Marla situated at Mauza Shahbara Tehsil and District Charsadda for the construction of "Peshawar-Islamabad Motorway", Fazal Muhammad and others landowners/ respondents herein were aggrieved of the low rate of compensation i.e, Rs,1500 per Marla awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, brought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the appellant for enhancement of the rate of compensation on the ground that the rate assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was neither proper nor suitable nor in accordance with the potential value of the acquired land, thus they claimed the enhancement at the rate of Rs,10,000 per Marla.
3. The objection petition was contested by the appellant and divergent pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- ISSUES:--
(1) Whether the petitioners have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether the petition is incompetent in its present form?
(3) Whether the petitioners are estopped to sue?
(4) Whether the petition is time-barred?
(5) Whether the petition is bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties?
(6) Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain present petition?
(7) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation at the enhanced rates?
(8) What is the market value of the acquired land?
(9) Relief.
4. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing their learned counsel, the Referee Court dismissed the Objection Petition of the affectee land-owners vide judgment and decree dated 19-7-2004.
5. Feeling dissatisfied from the above judgment and decree of the Referee Court. The respondents herein have Referred appeal R.F.A. No,105 of 2004 before this Court and vide judgment and decree of this Court dated 14-10-2008 the same was accepted, judgment and decree of the Referee Court was set aside and case was remanded back to the Referee Court to frame issues arising from pleadings with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and thereafter opportunity be provided to the parties to adduce evidence in their respective claims and denial.
6. After remand, the learned Referee Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties reframed the following issues on 27-2-2009:-- ISSUES;
(1) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition?
(2) Whether the petitioner has got cause of action?
(3) Whether the petition is bad due to mis/non-joinder of necessary party?
(4) Whether the petition is time barred?
(5) Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition?
(6) Whether the petition is not in accordance to the law and facts, if so, what is its effect?
(7) Whether the respondents have not observed the legal procedural requirements while acquiring the land of the petitioner through the impugned award, if so, its effect?
(8) Whether the property is commercial one and the acquiring agency have not fixed the price of the suit-land in accordance to its market value through the impugned award?
(9) Whether the market value of the land acquired through impugned award is not less than Rs,10,000 per marla?
(10) Whether the petitioner is entitled the price of the trees etc. Standing on the land under acquired through suitable compensation?
(11) Whether the petitioner was not awarded the compulsory acquisition charges, if so, its effect?
(12) Whether the price was fixed by the respondents as per their own assessment, if so, its effect?
(13) Whether due to acquisition of the property through the impugned award the other property of the petitioner got damaged, if so, its effect?
(14) What is the actual/proper market value of the land acquired through impugned award?
(15) Relief.
7. The land-owners/respondents produced one Jan Muhammad as P.W.1 while the appellant examined one Tilawat Khan Patwari as R.W.1 and relied on the evidence already recorded in the case before remand. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide judgment dated 16-7- 2009 the learned Referee Judge has accepted the Objection Petition and enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs,1500 to Rs,4000 per Marla with 15% acquisition charges at the enhanced amount in accordance to the price of the land of Mauza Gana Bela.
8. Dissatisfied with the above judgment of the learned Referee Court dated 16-7-2009, the land- owners/ respondents herein filed R.F.A. No,154 of 2009 for further enhancement of the rate of compensation while appellant/ referred R.F.A. No,197 of 2009 against the rate of compensation enhanced by the learned Referee Court. Vide single judgment of this court dated 2-4-2010 recorded in R.F.A. No,154 of 2009, both the appeals were accepted, judgment of the learned Referee Court dated 16-7-2009 was set aside and the case was remanded back to it for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment.
9. After remand, the learned Referee Court in compliance with the order of this court appointed Mr.Ahmad Shah, Advocate as local commissioner with the consent of both the parties who inspected the spot and submitted his report dated 26-6-2010. He was also examined as CW-1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Referee Judge vide his judgment dated 25- 11-2010 enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs,1500 to Rs,8000 per marla with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Hence, the instant Regular First Appeal.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
11. The only question for determination before this court is whether the learned local commissioner has correctly assessed the market value/rate of compensation of the acquired property in the light of the spot inspection and the property adjacent to it. To this effect, one Mr.Ahmad Shah Khan, advocate was appointed as local commissioner by the learned Referee Court who inspected the spot and submitted his report dated 26-6-2010 Exh. CW-1/1. The local commissioner was also appeared in the witness box as CW-1 and admitted his report Exh. CW-1/1 as correct and bears his signatures. He was lengthy cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant but nothing could be brought from his mouth favourable to the appellant. In his cross-examination, he stated that he inspected the adjacent properties to the acquired property and found maize and sugarcane crops there and the acquired property was an agricultural one. He further deposed that he has also found residential houses. He also stated in his report that the property in dispute is situated on road side at a distance of 4/5 kilometers from Charsadda Interchange having less distance from Peshawar. He thus assessed the market price of the acquired land as Rs,8000 per marla. Tilawat Khan patwari produced by the appellant as RW-1 who stated in the cross- examination that vide Award No,79 the land of Mauza Gana Bela acquired by the NHA for the construction of road at the rate of Rs,4000 per marla. Similarly, land of Chak AGRA, was acquired at the rate of Rs,7500 per maria vide Award No,112. Land in village Srikh Bela was also acquired for the construction of same Peshawar-Islamabad Motorway at the rate of Rs,6375 per marla vide Award No,95.
12. The learned District Judge, Charsadda as Referee Judge in the given circumstances relying upon the report of local commissioner as well as the other evidence particularly statement Tilawat Khan patwari (RW-1), in my view was justifiable to enhance the rate of compensation from Rs,1500 to Rs,8000 per marla of the acquired land and the earned counsel for the appellant failed to satisfy this court that tie said enhancement in the rate of compensation vide impugned judgment is unfair and requires interference. The land-owners/respondents have not preferred any appeal or cross- objection against the impugned judgment of the learned Referee Court meaning thereby that they are satisfied with the aforesaid date of compensation fixed by the said court.
13. The crux of the above discussion is that I find no illegality in the findings of the learned Referee Court and as such, the instant appeal being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.