1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--All these appeals are connected together though they relate to three different villages 1, Jora Pind; 2, Daragri; 3, Phuldar. They all relate to the award of compensation for land acquired in connection with Tarbela Dam.
2. ' It is not necessary to give all the details of the various stages in the litigation involved in these appeals as the controversy now left for determination by this Court is not only limited but is being decided on agreement of the parties on some points. It may be mentioned here that all these are direct appeals except Appeal No,119 of 1989, which is through leave of the Court.
3. ' The pivotal case relates to the village Phuldar to which Civil Appeal No,730/84 relates. The High Court judgment impugned therein is based on a finding of fact that the the evidence/record/material relevant to the village Phuldar could not be depended upon because of large scale interpolations and forgeries. Accordingly the award of compensation therein was based on the award of compensation given for village Daragri on account of the closeness of two villages and similarity of the land quality therein. Learned counsel for the appellants in the said appeal raised the following contentions:-
(1) That the findings of fact regarding the nature of records as to their dependability are incorrect.
(2) That if the award for village Phuldar is to be based on the award of some other villages it should have been on the basis of the final award made by the Supreme Court in a case relating to village Khalabat and not the final award relating to village Daragri.
(3) That the fruit trees evaluation and compensation therefor as determined by the High Court in the impugned judgment is not being implemented by the Government. After some arguments when we had ourselves examined the photo copies of the records pointed out by the learned counsel, we observed that they were on the very face tampered with and unreliable, the learned counsel did not press the first argument to its logical end.
4. ' On the question whether, the final award for village Khalabat should have been made the basis for Phuldar, after some arguments it was found that although both Khalabat and Daragri might be having some nexus with village Phuldar; yet, as held in the findings of fact by the High Court, village Daragri could definitely be preferrd over village Khalabat in so far as the co-relationship with village Phuldar and land therein is concerned. Village Khalabat of course would remain relevant only for determining the compensation regarding village Daragri which would be presently discussed. Ultimately learned counsel for the appellants accepted that the final award for village Daragri may be made the basis for the decision in C.A.730/1984 relating to village Phuldar.
5. ' Regarding fruit trees the learned Advocate-General assured the learned counsel for the appellants that whatever is the verdict of the High Court on this issue, the same shall be implemented. On this assurance learned counsel for the appellants did not press this point also any further. Accordingly the decision of this appeal would depend upon the decision of the appeals relating to village Daragri.
6. ' In regard to the compensation for village Daragri, after some discussion the learned counsel from both sides agreed that the method devised by the High Court in the judgment impugned in four Appeals of village Daragri filed in 1984 is fair and can be followed for the disposal of the said Appeals as also the Appeal No,119 of 1989.
7. ' After facing some difficulty in resolving the controversy regarding the reliability of the records the High Court thought it fit to work out an average of previously finalised awards for the villages Jora Pind, Khalabat, Baseera, Kag, Phuldar and Daragri. This average came to Rs,3802.22 per kanal and accordingly for the land: Chahi, Nul, Chahi and Bahir-di-Abi which, it seems, was the highest quality land in that village, it was awarded.
8. ' As awards for some of the villages were made subject to further appeals before this Court, therefore, the learned counsel appearing in the appeals of villages Phuldar and Daragri rightly argued that whatever is held to be the final award for the six villages should, averagewise, be made basis for deciding these appeals. It was admitted amongst the learned counsel that the award of Kag and .Baseera had earlier become final and the award for village Khalabat had become final by recent appellate judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No,153 of 1982, 'Ahmad Raza Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. And other connected appeals decided on 11-2-1989. Regarding Jora Pind the appeals are before this Court and are being disposed of by this judgment. The decision of those appeals, therefore, will have to be noticed while deciding the appeals regarding village Daragri and with reference thereto of village Phuldar also.
9. ' Coming to the appeals relating to village. Jora Pind the matter is simple. During proceedings before the High Court the parties entered into negotiations for compromise out of the Court. The facts in that behalf as recorded in the impugned judgment are as follows:- "Before dealing with the points argued before us, we would like to mention one fact which has great bearing on the decision which we are going to make. During the course of arguments the parties expressed their wil linkness to compromise the matter. They were allowed time for the purpose and were asked to go out of the Court for negotiations. After sometime the parties were called in Court and the representatives of WAPDA including the learned Additional Advocate-General representing the appellants made an offer that they were ready to pay Its 3,100 per kanal for Bagh, Chahi and Abadi kind of land and the compensation amount of other kinds of land may be worked out on th at basis. The learned counsel for the respondents however did not a accept the offer and they stated that the minimum compensation which they would accept for Bagh, Chahi and Abadi kind - of land would be Rs,3,300 per kanal, which was equal to the compensation amoun t assessed by the Acquisition Judge in respect of this kind of land in village Daragari which was situated adjacent to the disputed village."
10. ' Before us also a question arose why the short gap between the offers made by both sides before the High Court, could not be abridged. After some discussion in and out of the Court the parties agreed that the mean between the two offiers; namely, Rs,3,200 per kanal for the highest quality land could be acceptable to both sides. In the context of the just award it would be fair to both the parties to fix the compensation in the case of village Jora Pind for the type of land mentioned in the above quotation on the basis of the agreement reached in this Court, namely, Rs,3,200 per kanal. It may be mentioned here that some argument were by the learned counsel in support of the appeals from Jora Pind to the effect that the appellants should not be bound by the statement made by their learned counsel in the High Court. After some discus sion in this behalf we did hot accept the contention and thereafter th e mean between the two offers was settled as agreed solution.
11. ' Once the compensation for Jora Pint 9 is determined it will straightaway be utilised in the formula for vi llage Daragri and with reference to it for village Phuldar also. Accordingly the amount of Rs,3,100 per kanal accounted by the High C, ourt for village Jora Pind in working out the average of six villages would now be 'read as Rs,3,200 on account of foregoing decision of appeals of village Jora Pind. Similary the amount for village Khalakbat for purpose of working out of the average would also change rom Rs,3,112 per kanal to either Rs,4792 or Rs,3,354 per kanal depending upon the classification of land respectively as follows:-
(a) Chahi, Bagh, Bagh Chahi Rs,4,792 per kanal.
(b) Charri Abi, Nal Chahi Rs,3,354.80.
12. ' As already mentioned in conection with discussion of appeals relating to village Daragri the awards of villages Baseer 'a and Kag have already become final at Rs,3000 per kanal and Rs, 7,000 per kanal respectively. These final awards of the four Jora Pind, Khalabat, Baseera and Kag, are to be added to the last final awards of Phuldar and Daragri; so as to work out the "age for six villages.
13. ' Thus that amount under the agreed method would be the award for village Daragri and same would be the award for village Phuldar.
14. ' Before doing exercise another controversy needs to be resolved. While working out the average for the six villages the High Court obviously took the amounts, previously determined as final awards, for villages Daragri and Phuldar. It was Rs,3,301 per kanal each for the high quality land. While the Government wanted that the same amounts should be now added to the awards of the other four villages for working the average, the learned counsel for the appellants insisted that when the Supreme Court is now determining the final award for villages Daragri and Phuldar for purposes of working out the average, the last final award by the High Court for villages Daragri and Phuldar should be counted and not the said amounts Rs,3,301 each for the said two villages counted by the High Court. If this contention of the owners is accepted the amounts for villages Daragri and Phuldar would be Rs,3,802.22 per kanal for each village. They were asked to sort out this difference but despite their best efforts the parties have not agreed. It is, however, not difficult to resolve this controversy. Once the formula is accepted that the final awards of the six villages would be added together so as to work out the average for village Daragri, it will be against all canons of justice if the final awards for villages Daragri and Phuldar, as determined by the High Court, are not added now for purposes of working out the average. We hold accodingly. Thus worked out the agverage comes to Rs,4,266.07 per kanal if the compensation for village Khalabat is added as Rs,4,792 per kanal for the high quality land. This average of Rs,4,266.07 per kanal would be reduced to Rs,4,026.40 per kanal in case Rs,3,354 as earlier held, is added for village Khalabat for the next high quality land. Thus there will be two averages for the high quality land of village Daragri also; namely, Rs,4,266.07 and 4026.40 per kanal, for the two highest quality lands. The learned counsel for all the parties concerned agreed that if the amounts for the relevant high quality lands for village Daragri are once determined by the Court, the compensation for the remaining land (classification/ qualitywise) could and would be worked out on the said basis accordingly. This is in line with the position taken in the High Court in some of 'these cases, namely, that "the compensation amount of other kinds of land may be worked out on 'that basis". We would order accordingly. Thus the compensation for village Daragri having been determined, the same mutatis mutandis applies to village Phuldar as already discussed and held above and we order accordingly.
15. 'The conclusion subject to what has been stated above, therefore, is that in the appeals of village Jora Pind the compensation for the highest quality land is held to be Rs,3,200 per kanal. And in the appeals of villages Daragri and Phuldar Rs,4,266.07 or Rs,4,026.40 per kanal, for the highest quality lands, namely: (a) Chahi, Bagh, Bagh Chahi (b) Charri Abi and Nal Chahi respectively. The concerned department/functionaries of the respondent shall work out the details of compensation on the so determined basis for each of these two villages in accordance with the accepted formula for the lower classes/quality of land and pay the compensation accordingly. This exercise shall be done as soon as possible so as not to delay the matter beyond three months; failing which, failure report shall be submitted to the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, for further action.
16. ' During the hearing of these appeals, two applications were made by Mst. Khalida Bibi daughter of Khan Bahadur Muhamamd Zaman Khan, a non-appealing party for grant of relief, by virtue of the powers of this Court under Order .33, Rule 5 of the 1980 Supreme Court Rules read with Order XL, Rule 33, C.P.C. Applications related to villages Daragri and Jora Pind. The learned Advocate-General after some arguments gave up the opposition to these G applications. They have been marked together as C.M.P. No,129-R/89 in C.A.5/84, C.A. 136/84, C.A.138 of 1984 and Civil Appeal No,730 fo 1984.
17. ' We accordingly allow these applications. The decision in these appeals shall apply to her case also.
18. 'Encouraged by the treatment of the case of Mst. Khalida Bibi, several other persons with the assistance of those who had filed the appeals in this Court, submitted miscellaneous applications for the same relief as sought by Mst. Khalida Bibi. It seems that the learned Advocate-General ultimately had given up opposing to the applications of Mst. Khalida Bibi in the peculiar circumstances only of her case--she being a 'Parda Nasheen' lady and her very close relations and co-sharers had filed appeals. But when innumerable persons filed similar applications, he after consultation with WAPDA representative vehemently opposed them. Ultimately these applicants were divided into two categories. One, who accepted the awards from the very beginning. In the context of facts stated in the Court they seemed to have been adequately compensated for their lands and for that reason they had never made any Court objection. The second category was such who had come to the appeal Court and did not file any appeal before this Court. After hearing the learned counsel on this question despite the opposition regarding both the categories we did not find any distinction between the case of Mst. Khalida Bibi and that of the second category applicants. We, therefore, allow Civil Miscellaneous Application No,131-R of 1989 in Civil Appeal No,136 of 1984 only in addition to Civil Miscellaneous Application No,129-R of 1989 and reject the remaining applications, namely, C.M.P.No,130-R of 1989, C.M.P. No,132-R of 1989 and C.M.P. No,133-R of 1989. C.M.P.No, 134-R of 1989 and C.M.P.No,135-R of 1989. Despite the disposal of these applications there is a possibility of some disputes arising on the questions of classification and the number/names of the persons to whom the relief has been granted in Civil Mis. No,129-R of 1989, Civil Mis. No,131-R of 1989. These questions shall be brought to the notice of the Honourable Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court who may dispose of the same or mark them for disposal to any other Judge/Bench of that Court. It would also apply to other disputes.
19. ' In the light of what has been stated above all these appeals are partly allowed with the above orders, directions and observations. There shall be no order as to costs.