MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J. This single judgment in the instant appeal shall also decide connected regular first appeals as tabulated at the end of this judgment, being an identical question of law and facts pertaining to award bearing No.11524/AG-II/VII/42 dated 29.12.1999, which was subject matter of Land Acquisition Petitions Nos. 3/4 & 4/4 of 2017, both, decided on 31.03.2018 by the learned Referee Court through separate judgments.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of all these appeals are that the Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Workers Welfare Board Peshawar, the acquiring department through letter dated 27.11.1996, requested the Collector Acquisition Gulkada, Swat for acquisition of land measuring 51-kanal and 19-marla for the purpose of "construction of 25 Bedded Hospital and a Model School for Industrial Workers at Swat" at village Panr (Mingora), Tehsil Babuzai, District Swat under regular process of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act of 1894). The acquiring agency initiated the process by issuing of a notification u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 in official gazette on 02.04.1999. Tehsildar Babozai worked out market rate of the property on the basis of ausat yaksala amounting to Rs.1,46,143/80 per Kanal, however, the acquiring department reduced the property from 51-kanal 19-marla to 42- kanal 09-marla and an amount of Rs.74,55,422/- was placed at the disposal of the acquiring agency, with 15% compulsory charges. The process was completed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1894 and ultimately the award was announced on 29.12.1999 by fixing an amount @ Rs.146,143/80 per Kanal as compensation of the acquired land, being based upon one- year average. During the process, the owners of the land submitted their objections, however same were turned down by the acquiring agency on 18.12.1999. The issuance of award resulted into submission of two references u/s 18 of the Act of 1894, one by appellants of the instant appeal titled "Abdul Latif and three others Vs. Secretary Workers Welfare Board Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and four others", with the assertion that the market value of the property @ Rs.26.84 per sq ft was neither fixed in consonance with rates at the spot nor the potentiality was considered by the authorities i.c., the acquiring agency. It was prayed that the rate may be enhanced to Rs.130 per sq ft. Similar was the prayer of the appellants/objectors of connected R.F.A No.50-M/2081 in their reference titled "Javed Iqbal and another Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others". Both the acquiring department and acquiring agency contested the references/ objection petitions through their respective: replies on different legal and factual objections. After completion of evidence, the objectors submitted an application for appointment of a local commission for determination the actual market/potential value of the property but same were turned down by the learned Referee Court on 22.05.2004 and after hearing the parties both the references were dismissed through judgment dated 05.06.2004, against which, R.F.A No.92-P/2004 & R.F.A No.115-P/2004 were filed by the objectors. Both these appeals, after hearing the parties, were partially allowed by this Court through consolidated judgment dated 25.02.2016. Being not satisfied from the judgment of this Court, Civil Appeals No.1199, 1200, 1399 & 1400 of 2016 were filed before the apex Court, which were decided through single judgment dated 12.09.2017, allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of this Court as well as of the learned Referee Court. Resultantly, the cases were remanded to the learned Referee Court for a fresh decision after appointment of local commission and recording of additional evidence, if any. After remand, the learned Referee Court appointed Mr. Saiful Malook, Advocate, as local commission with directions to submit his report, in accordance with the following terms of references (ToRs); 1) "To provide detail whether the property acquired by the government is adjacent to the Labour Colony of the Workers Welfare Board, building of Poly Technical College and Poly Technical Institute? And if possible, obtain/ prepare the revenue map in detail to this aspect with the help of expert revenue official?
2) If answer, to the above query is in affirmative, then, whether value/price determined for paym ent of the compensation was much higher than the actual?
3) To determine as to what is the market value of the suit property in view of mutations sanctioned in preceding years of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act?
4) Prepare only yearly average of the suit property in view of mutations sanctioned in preceding years of issuance of notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act keeping in mind the same nature, character and status of suit property by annexing with report all mutations relied upon?
5) Any other point which local commission deems necessary may also be brought in the report for settling the dispute between the parties on merits.
The learned local commission proceeded to the spot, conducted proceedings in accordance with the terms of references and submitted his report according to aust yaksala commencing from the period 02.4.1998 to 02.04.1999, where he opined that market rate of "sadin" kind of land is Rs. 129.23 sq ft while of "Bari" kind is Rs.24.51 sq ft. The report was objected to by both the parties, as such, the commission was examined as CW-1 on 26.01.2018. After hearing the parties, the learned Referee Court turned down the objections of the acquiring department as well as of acquiring agency, confirmed the commission report and enhanced the compensation amount of the acquired land from Rs.26.84 per sq ft to Rs.129.23 per sq ft. with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 06 % per annum enhanced compensation vide judgments and decrees dated 31.03.2018. The objectors who are appellants of the instant appeal and of connected R.F.A No.50- M/2018 filed these appeals for conversion of simple interest @ 6% per annum into compound interest whereas, the acquiring department and acquiring agency filed the other connected appeals for setting aside of the judgments of the learned Referee Court in terms of dismissal of the references filed by the objectors/owners of the acquired land.
3. Mr. Sajjad Anwar, Advocate representing the appellants in this as well as R.F.A No.50-M/2018 contended that the appellants/objectors are requesting for conversion of simple interest into compound interest whereas, the learned A.A.G and Khwaja Salah-ud-Din, Advocate representing the acquiring agency and acquiring department contended that the learned Referee Court and for that matter the learned local commission have failed to determine the proper market value of the property in juxtaposition with its potential aspect of the land, which, as per their contention, was properly fixed by the acquiring agency.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and with their valuable assistance have gone through from the record.
5. Ex.PW3/1 (four leaves) is the award pertaining to the property bearing Khasra Nos. 3277, 3278, 3282 & 3283 measuring 16-kanal 10-marla, 03-kanal 08-marla, 8-kanal 0-mara and 14- Kanal 11- marla, respectively and total measuring 42-kanal 09- marla. The kind of acquired land is 'sadin' and 'Bari'. Khasra No.3277, 3278 & 3282 measuring 27-kanal 02-marla are of 'sadin' kind of land as per extracts from jamabandi for the year 1993-94 of the revenue estate of Mingora Tehsil Babozai, District Swat. Khasra No. 3283 is 'Bari' land. As per award (Ex.PW3/1), the process of acquisition was initiated on 02.04.1999 and was completed on 29.12A999, notifications u/s 6 & 17 were issued on 24.11.1999.
6. The objectors in order to prove their contentions produced Nazir Ahmad Registration Moharrir of the office of Sub-Registrar as PW-1 and Ihsanullah ADK as PW-2, who placed on file attested copies of mutations No. 1140, 1137, 1126, 961, 984 & 1010 as Ex.PW-2/1 to Ex.PW2/7. In his cross examination, certain mutations were placed on file by the respondents. Muhammad Ismail was produced as PW-3, in whose statement valuation certificate was placed on record as Ex.PW3/10. Abid Raza, Patwari Halqa Mingora appeared in the witness-box as PW-4, who placed on file extracts from current jamabandi, aks shajara kishtawar and khasra girdawari as Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/3. Iftikhar Hussain, Advocate/Notary Public was produced as PW-5. Riaz Buland Petition Writer District Court Swat was produced as PW-6 while Haji Aman-ud-Din was produced as PW-7. Fazal Rashid and Muhammad Qasim were produced as PW-8 & PW-9, respectively.
7. Respondents produced Gohar Shah Land Acquisition Assistant Worker Welfare Board Peshawar as RW-1 and closed their evidence.
8. From the divergent pleadings of the parties' issues were framed wherefrom issues No.5, 6 & 7 are relevant for resolution of the controversy, which are reproduced as under: The sole witness of the respondents/ acquiring department RW-1 namely Gohar Shah Land Acquisition Assistant Worker Welfare Board Peshawar, in his examination, has admitted that the disputed property was suitable for the purpose of construction of hospital and school etc., however, he could not explain the market and potential value of the property by adducing in cross examination that he is posted at Peshawar and during his entire service, he has never been posted at Swat. He also admitted that he could not explain the boundary line of the revenue estate of Mingora, Kotaro Mera of Panr estate. During statement of RW-1, the objectors brought on record that the revenue estate of Panr and Mingora are adjacent to each other. Ex.PW5/1 and Ex.PW5/2 are the documents, which were executed after issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 dated 02.04.1999 and 31.08.1999. Vide Ex.PW5/2, from the revenue estate of Panr, Mingora a property was sold @ Rs.100/- per sq ft. Ex.PW3/6 is the aks shajara-e kishtwar, which shows that all the four Khasra numbers are contiguous to each other, on western side of this property the provincial government owns the property. It is pertinent to mention here that Ex.PW3/10 is valuation certificate prepared by Tehsildar Babozai, District Swat, wherein it was categorically mentioned that market value of the land under acquisition is as Rs.100/130 per sq ft. There are other documents i.e., Ex.PW6/1 etc. prepared much earlier to the process of acquisition initiated on 30.04.1997, whereby a piece of land was sold @ Rs.140 per sq ft.
9. Apart from the above, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the local commission was appointed who proceeded to the spot and submitted his report, the operative part of the report pertaining to determination of the value of the acquired property reads as under: Keeping in view the factual situation, record both Revenue and Land Acquisition, the local commissioner is of the view that; i. If the average rate according to Yaksala for the period 02 04-1998 to 02-04-1999 is considered then the value of the land which is shown as "Sadin" would be Rs. 129.23 while land belonging to kind "Bart" would be Rs. 24.51 per square foot. ii. If the rate reasonability/valuation certificate of the Revenue Officer Circle Babozai / Tchsildar is considered then the market rate per square foot would be Rs. 70 to 75 rather say Rs. 72.50.
Or If mean of the "Awsat Yaksala Jat" of "Bari", "Sadin" and that of the rate reasonability certificate issued by the revenue officer is calculated then it would be (129.23 + 24.51 +72.50 3 = 75.41) Rs.
75.41 per square foot.
The local commission confined himself to determination of the valuation of the property as acquired by the respondents i.e., Sadin and Bari and in this regard has submitted his report that from 02.4.1998 to 02.04.1999, the market value of the kind of sadin land would be 129.23 per sq ft whereas of the kind of Bari land would be 24.51 per sq ft. Sketch prepared by the learned local commission reflects the Government Poly Technical Institute Panr on eastern side, Technical Vocational Center on western side, road passes through from mid of the acquired land and it is connected with main Jambi! Mingora road, thus, the property had a potential future prospect especially, when a road passes through from its center and connects it with main Jambil Mingora Road. Though the learned local commission cross examined at length by the respondents but he remained consistent as per his findings besides his version is supported by aks shajara kishiawar placed on file, reflecting the contiguity of acquired property with other property. Most of the acquired land is of `sadin' kind and when road passes through it then the kind of Bari land has also been converted into sadin. For the purpose of determination of market value, not only the yearly average is considered but the potential aspect is also considered keeping in view the availability of facilities, utilization and future prospects, regarding which the respondents themselves have admitted that this property could be acquired for the purpose of construction of school etc. The apex Court in the case "Sarhad Development Authority and others Vs. Nawab Ali Khan and others" (2020 SCMR 265) has held that: "7. After carefully considering the valuable submissions of the learned counsel for the Acquiring Authority, two crucial issues require resolution in the instant connected appeals: firstly, whether sale transactions subsequent to the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act could be considered in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to landowners for the Acquired Property; and secondly, whether this Court in its present jurisdiction, could for the first time determine disputed question of facts, in particular, whether the sale transactions relied by the Courts below were from a different mauza, and that the third commission report based its valuations on sale transactions relied by the previous commissions, which had been rejected by the High Court in its earlier decisions."
Reliance may also be placed on the cases of "WAPDA through S.E Acquirinff Cell and others Vs. Syed Ali and another"(2010 SCMR 82), "Abdul Aziz Vs. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashimir and others"(PLD 2010 SC AJK 37), "Askari Cement Limited Vs. Land Acquisition Collector"(2013 SCMR 1644), "Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Begun Aziza" (2014 SCMR 75), "Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Muqesh Begum"(2011 CLC 1488) and "Superintending Engineer WAPDA Vs. Laab Bibi" (2012 YLR 2283). The local commission has submitted his report pertaining to sadin kind of land in consonance with the principle as held by the apex Court for determination of the compensation of the acquired land on the basis of one year average as enunciated in the case of "Murad Khan v/s Land Acquisition Collector Peshawar and another" (1999 SCMR 1647), wherein it was held that: "12. We are of the considered view, however, that the schedule of average price for four years or for that matter even of one year are not the only criterion for determining the amount of compensation but the "other material" brought on the file is quite relevant to determine the correct amount of compensation for the acquired land.
13. Section 23 of the Act lays down, by way of criterion, that "market value" of land on the date of publication of notification under section 4 (ibid) would be the amount of compensation. The expression "market value" has not been defined in the Act. But there is considerable case-law on the point encompassing the period of about nine decades in which the expression in question has come to assume almost definite meaning. In this judgment we would, however, refer to a number of Very important cases in which the expression 'market value' occurring in section 23 (ibid) has been judicially construed by various High Courts and even the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
According to these judgments the following matters are to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation: -
(i) The data from which the market value of the land can be estimated is given in Rule 13 of the North-West Frontier Province Circular No.54' issued presumably under section 55 of the Act.
(Premier Sugar Mills Limited v. Hayatullah Khan (PLD 1956 (W.P.) Pesh. 67).
(ii) The best method to work out the market value is the practical method of a prudent man laid down in section 3 of the Evidence Act to examine and analyse all the material and evidence available on the point and to determine the price which a willing purchaser would pay to willing seller of the acquired land. "The Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi v. Lieut. General Wajid Ali Khan Burki (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah. 469).,
(iii) Subsection (1) of section 23 of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation the Court shall take into consideration the market value, loss by reason of severing such land from his other land, acquisition injuriously affecting his other property or his earning in consequence of change of residence or place of business and damage, if any, resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, This, however, is not exhaustive of other injuries or loss which maybe suffered by an owner on account of compulsory acquisition. (Province of West Pakistan and another v. M, Salim Ullah and others (PLD 1966 SC 547).
(iv) The best method of determination of the market price of the plots of land under the acquisition is to rely on instances of sale of it near about the date of notification under section 4 (i) of the Act.
The next best method is to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent lands made shortly before and after the notification. When the market value is to be determined on the basis of the instances of sale of land in the neighbouring locality, the potential value of the land need not be separately awarded because such sales cover the potential value. (Jogendra Nath Chatterjee and others v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1971 Calcutta 458).
(v) It is obvious that the law provides determination of compensation not with reference to classification or nature of land but its market value at the relevant time. No doubt, for determining the market value, classification or the nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but that is not the whole truth. An-area may be Banjar Qadeem or Barani as in the present case but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits. (Pakistan and another v Rehm Dad and another (1980 CLC 574.).
(vi) According to the well-settled principle, while determining the value of the compensation the market value of the land at the time of requisition/acquisition and its potentiality have to be kept in consideration. (Pakistan v. Din Muhammad and others (1983 CLC 1281).
(vii) Consideration should be had to all the potential uses to which the land can be put, as well as all the advantages, present or future, which the land possesses in the hands of the owners. (Mst.
Khatu and others v Barrage Mukhtiarkar, Thatta (PLD 1977 Kar. 203).
(viii) In determining the quantum of fair compensation, the, main criterion is the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily entered into the transaction. (Din Muhammad v. General Manager, Communication and others (PLD, 1978 Lah. 1135).
(ix) The measure of fair compensation is the value of the property in open market which a seller voluntarily entering into a transaction of sale can reasonably demand from a purchaser this means that we, have to determine the value of the land in the open market at the relevant time on the assumption that the notification of acquisition did not exist. (Province of Punjab v. Sher Muhammad and another (PLD 1983 Lah. 578).
(x) While determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller, only the '12ast sales' should not be taken into account but the value of the land with all its 12otentialities may also be determined by examining (if necessary, as Court witness) local property dealers or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property in question is likely to fetch in the open market. In appropriate cases there should be no compunction even relying upon the oral testimony with respect to market value of the property intended to be acquired, because even while deciding cases involving question of life and death, the Courts rely on oral testimony alone and do not insist on the production of documentary evidence. The credibility of such witnesses would, however, have to be kept in mind and it would be for the Court in each case to determine the weight to be attached to their testimony. It would be useful and even necessary, to examine such witnesses while determining the market prices of the land in questions because of the prevalent tendency that in order to save money on the purchases of stamp papers and to avoid the imposition of heavy gain tax levied on sale of property, people declare or show a much smaller amount as the price of the land purchased by them than the price actually paid. The previous sales of the land, cannot, therefore, be always taken to be an accurate measure for the determining the price of land intended to be acquired. (Fazalur Rehman and others v. General Manager, S.I.D.B. and another (PLD 1986 SC 158).
(xi) The sale-deed and mutation entries do serve as an aid to the prevailing market value.
(Government of Pakistan v. Maulvi Ahmed Saeed (1983 CLC 414).
(xii) It is a well-settled law that in cases of compulsory acquisition effort has to be made to find out what the market value of the acquired land was or could be on the material date. While so venturing the most important factor to be kept in mind would be the complexion and -character of the acquired land on the material date. The potentialities it possessed on that date arc also to be kept in view in determining a fair compensation to be awarded to the owner who is deprived-of his land as a result of compulsory acquisition under the Act. (Central Government of Pakistan v.
Sardar Fakhar-e-Alam and another (1985 CLC 2228).
(xiii) The value of the land of the adjoining area which was simultaneously acquired and for which different formula of compensation has been adopted, should be taken into consideration. (Raza Muhammad Abdullah through his Legal Heirs v. Government of Pakistan and others A (1986 MLD 252).
(xiv) The phrase "market value of the land" as used in section 23(1), of the Act means "value to the owner" and, therefore, such value must be the basis for determination of compensation. The standard must be no, subjective standard but an objective one. Ordinarily, the objective standard would be the price that owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The property must be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the determination but its potential value must be taken into consideration. (Abdul Wahid and others v. The Deputy Commissioner (1986 MLD 381).
While considering the aforesaid factors, in consonance with law, as held by the apex Court and by this Court as well, learned Referee Court has rightly assessed the compensation of the acquired land by taking into consideration its potentiality, the benefits, the advantage from present and future use and from the location of the acquired property has reached to a just conclusion by fixing the compensation of acquired land as Rs.I29.23 per sq ft.
10. Insofar as the contention of the appellants as well as in connected R.F.A No.50-M/2018 for conversion of simple interest into compound interest is concerned, suffice it to say that there is no provision in the entire Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for compound interest. When learned counsel for appellants was questioned about his contentions for conversion of simple interest into compound interest, he simply submitted that it is for the Court to determine the payer of the petitioners. So much so for the simple interest the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar through Chief Secretary Peshawar and others Vs. Yousaf Khan etc." (2022 SCMR 1836) by considering the judgment in the Aslam Khaki's case decided by the Shariat Appellate Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in juxtaposition with the case of "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through District Collector and others vs. Misal Khan and others" (2022 SCMR 277) decided on 14.10.2021 for the purpose of payment of price/ compensation (interest) has held that: "7. Reading of the Aslam Khaki case shows that this Court recognized the injustice done to and the hardships suffered by a landowner whose land is acquired and the possession thereof taken over without paying him its fair price/compensation. The Court endorsed the findings of the Federal Shariat Court with regard to the language used and the manner specified for imposing an additional amount over the original awarded amount, but emphasized it also that a landowner deprived of the possession of his land without payment of fair price/compensation should be compensated in some way or the other. The judgment, one of the modes proposed was that a landowner, the possession of whose land is taken over without paying him its fair price/compensation, is entitled to receive a rent of its land for the period commencing from the date of possession to the date of the payment of the price/compensation. The court in Aslam Khaki's case further observed that the said rent should not be less than the fair market rent in the relevant period or an amount equal to 8% per annum of the awarded amount, whichever is higher, from the date of taking possession to the date of actual payment of the price/compensation to him. We may clarify here that an amount equal to 8% per annum of the awarded amount was mentioned in the Aslam Khaki case according to the percentage mentioned in Section 34 as it was then in force in some of the Provinces of Pakistan.
8. The preamble to the amending Ordinance 2001 which refers to the judgment of this Court delivered in the Aslam Khaki case and the above quoted observations made in that case were not brought to the notice of this Court at the hearing of the Misal Khan case, and thus the Court decided that under the amended section 28, a Referee Court is no more bound by any fixed rate of interest and can grant interest at any reasonable rate. It should have been "rent" instead of "interest". We, therefore, modify the interpretation put to the amended section 28 of the Act in the Misal Khan case to that extent by holding that under section 28 of the Act, a Referee Court can, and should, add the sum of actual fair market rental value of the land found acquired unpaid (or deficiently paid) if it is proved by evidence on record or, in absence of such evidence; a sum equal to 6% per annum of the enhanced sum of compensation as the minimum rental value of that land, from the date of taking possession of the acquired land to the date of actual paym ent of the enhanced price/compensation to the landowner."
It is reflected from the " record that notification under section 9 (3) regarding the intention of the acquiring agency for taking the possession of the property was issued on 15.12.1999 however, keeping in view the urgency for possession of the property, notification under section 17 was signed and published in the Official Gazette was published on 24th of November 1999 much earlier to the proceedings under section 9 of the Act of 1894 whereas, the amount was deposited in the Government treasury at the time of award i.e., 27.12.1999, whereas the possession was taken from the appellants by invoking the provision under section 17 of the Act ibid. Thus, the appellants/objectors were rightly held entitled for the rent/compensation @ 6% in pursuance to section 28 as amended in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for 06% compensation read with sections 31 & 34 of the Act of 1894. Though during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the acquiring department and learned A.A.G have raised an objection regarding deletion of section 28, ' however, their submissions, in view of the amendment made by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Land Acquisition in the year 2001, is misconceived, which reads as under: "the "word" pay simple interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date of which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court" the word "deposit with the Court such amount as determined by it" shall be substituted."
For the purpose of determination of 06% interest reliance may be placed on the cases of "Mst.
Nasreen Zahra Vs. Multan Development Authority Multan" (2015 SCMR 1440), and "Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas Ahmad Vs. Pakistan through Ministry of Defence, Islamabad" (2016 PLD 64), wherein it was held by the apex Court that: "A bare reading of above referred provision of the Act of 1894 reveals that awarding of such interest is statutory in nature, which cannot be withheld."
In the case of "Province of Punjab Vs. Jamil Ahmad Malik" (2000 SCMR 870), it was held by the apex Court that: "Section 34 of the Act provides that when the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited."
The amount @ 6% shall be read as rental value of the property possession whereof was taken from the landowners till the deposit of compensation amount with acquiring agency in consonance with the judgment of the apex Court reported as 2022 SCMR 1836 (supra).
11. In view of the above, the contention of learned counsel for appellants in the instant as well as R.F.A No.50-M/2018 for conversion of simple interest into compound interest is not supported by law, as such, it is misconceived. Likewise, the respondents (acquiring department and acquiring agency) in their respective appeals have also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the findings of the learned Referee Court pertaining to awarding of compensation to the land owners @ Rs. 129.23 per sq. ft. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, this as well as connected appeals, as tabulated below, being without any substances, are hereby dismissed but with no order as to cost.
S. NoRegular First Appeal No.Filed by 1 50-M/2018 Owners/objectors 2 51-M/2018 Acquiring Department 3 53-M/2018 Acquiring Department