' ABDUL LATIF KIIAN, J.---Through this single judgment, this court intends to dispose of instant Regular First Appeal No, 337 of 2010 and connected Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 338 of 2010, 339 of 2010, 340 of 2010, 341 of 2010, 342 of 2010, 343 of 2010, 348 of 2010 and 349 of 2010 as all the appeals are the outcome of same award and filed against one and same judgment dated 25-3- 2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge-V/Referee Judge, Nowshera.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the request of respondents/petitioners through Award No, NMS-433-38/DOR/Acq dated 1-6-2005, their properties were acquired by the appellants/defendants for the establishment of an Industrial Estate, situated at Daag Ismail Khel and Jalozai Mera, District Nowshera, wherein the respondents/petitioners were granted compensation as Rs,457 for Barani kind of land and Rs,411.19 per Marla for mix kind of land. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondents/petitioners filed separate references, under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After conclusion of trial, the learned Referee Court, through consolidated impugned judgment and decree enhanced the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs,10,000 per Marla along with 15% acquisition charges and 6% simple interest, minus the amount if paid to the petitioners. The said judgment was impugned by the present appellants through instant Regular First Appeal as well as connected appeals mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant (SDA) contended that the amount of compensation given in the award was properly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector as the property acquired was barren land. It was contended that the Referee Court has wrongly enhanced the amount to the tune of Rs, 10,000 per Marla, which is against the market value and is not based upon any evidence.
It was contended that the Referee Court has given no reason for enhancement of compensation amount. He added that the report of Local Commissioner also based upon no evidence and as such, enhancement made by the Referee Court is against law, illegal and untenable.
4. As against that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ objectors argued that the amount assessed in the award was too meagre as the value of Barani kind of land was assessed Rs,457 per Marla whereas the value of mixed kind of property was assessed as Rs,411.19 per Marla, which is not justified because for such a meagre amount, no property can be sold or purchased in any vicinity of the area. He contended that the property is situated on the main road surrounded by various existing and proposed buildings i.e, Engineering University, etc and the Local Commissioner has assessed the value to the tune of Rs,20,000 but the compensation awarded and enhanced by the- Trial Court only to the extent of Rs, 10,000 which is to be modified.
' I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
5. The land under reference was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera vide Award No, NMS-433-38/ DOR/Acq dated 1-6-2005, from the revenue estate Jalozai, Daag Ismail Khel for the establishment of Industrial Estate. Reference filed by the objectors, evidence produced in the Referee Court, award was posted as Exh.P.W.1/1. The petitioners have questioned the award amount as inadequate and unjustified and claimed Rs, 20,000 per Marla as the market value of the land under reference. The evidence produced in support of his claim, to fortify the stance taken in the petition. The average for years 21-3-2003 to 22-3-2004, was relied for the purpose of ascertaining the market value, which was not a safe criteria to be relied upon. The Local Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of determination of the market value of the land under reference who submitted his report. His statement was recorded and has posted his report Exh.CW.1/1, in his statement which reveals that the property is situated adjacent to Pabbi Charat road, and commercial and residential properties like proposed Engineering University and potential value of the acquired land in future prospect suggests that the value of the property tremendously high and the assessm ent made by the Collector was too meagre. The Trial Court has referred an award dated 19-4-2008 but the same is not available on file nor judgment delivered by the court awarding Rs,20,000, is also not available on file nor posted as exhibited in the evidence, so the same cannot be relied, however the assessment made by the Trial Court to the tune of Rs,10,000, seems to be fair.
6. The appellants could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Similarly, the appellants and respondents (in connected case) could not convince the court about the enhancing to the extent of Rs, 20,000 as claimed by them) with the aid of any documentary or oral evidence available on file and as such, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment.
7. So far the compulsory acquisition awarded by the Referee Court is concerned, SDA, being body corporate falls within the definition of Company in terms of section 3(e) of the Act. Sarhad Development Authority is the creation of statute (Sarhad Development Authority Act, 1972) especially under section 3(a) of the act (the commencement of the said Act on 12 January, 1973, the appellants are entitled to compulsory acquisition charges to the tune of 25% instead of 15%. The apex Court in "Mst.Sumaira Gul v. Land Acquisition Collector GSC, WAPDA Peshawar and others" case reported in 2011 SCMR 118, held that:-- "WAPDA being body corporate is a company and the land acquired for a company in terms of section 3(e) of the Act, the appellant was entitled for a compulsory acquisition charges, in addition to market value of the land at the rate of 25% and not at the rate of 15%."
8. Section 23 of the Land Action Act has given a yardstick that in addition to market value, this compulsory acquisition charges are to be awarded at the rate of 15%. If the acquisition has been made for company for the land acquired for public service a sum of Rs,25% in such market value as compulsory acquisition charges has to be awarded and not at the rate of 15%. So in such scenario though the objectors have failed to ask for compensation at the rate of 25% but the legal position being contrary to their prayer is to be followed and to this effect to the extent of compulsory compensation the judgment of the Referee Court is modified and instead of 15% compulsory acquisition charges, 25% are awarded.
9. In case of Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P., Peshawar v. Haji Fateh Khan (2001 SCMR 974) the apex Court held that--- "WAPDA being company under section 3(e) of for the purpose of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, enhancement of compulsory acquisition charges was justified to the tune of 25% instead of 15%."
' In case of "Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and 2 others v. The Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot and 3 others (PLD 1983 Lah. 178)" the following observation was made:--- "S.3(e)---Companies Act (VII of 1913), S.253---Water and Power Development Authority company- Although WAPDA not a company registered under Companies Act, 1913, yet a company incorporated by Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, consisting of a Chairman and not more than three members joined for common purpose of fulfilling object WAPDA and as such included in word "company" as defined in S.3(e) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
' Company defined under section 3(e) of the Act does not confine to a company in technical sense, but extends to its generic sense of being an association of persons united for a common purpose."
10. SDA is a company within the meaning of S.3(e)- word "company" as used in Section 3(e) and the compulsory acquisition charges, chargeable would be 25% instead of 15%.
For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals mentioned above are dismissed, however the impugned judgment of learned Referee Court is modified to the extent of awarding compulsory acquisition charges to the tune of 25% instead of 15%.