AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above appeals except Civil Appeals No.115-P to 149-P of 1990, which have been riled inter alia by the Government of N.- W.F.P. With the leave of this Court under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution. The other appeals have been filed by the land-owners, who were claiming before the Land Acquisition Collector. The above appeals filed by the land-owners have been filed without the leave of the Court as a matter of right under sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Article 185 of the Constitution, except few appeals riled by the land-owners with the leave of this Court. The above appeals are directed against the judgments of Division Benches of the Peshawar High Court passed in appeals filed by the land-owners and also by the Government of N.-W.F.P. The leading judgment was passed by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court on 26-11-1989 in R.F.A. No.14 of 1988 and 37 other appeals mentioned in para 6 of the aforesaid judgment, allowing partly the appeals filed by the land-owners but dismissing the appeals filed by the Government of N.-W.F.P. The above judgment has been followed by the other Division Benches of the said High Court in some other appeals. Leave to appeal was granted on 21- 5-1990 in C.P.L.A. Nos.63-R to 66-R of 199)0 (Civil Appeals Nos.724 to 727 of 1990) filed by the land- owners on the ground that a number of direct appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal was granted in petitions for leave to appeal riled by the Government of N.-W.F.P. Inter alia for the reason that leave was already granted in the above C.P.L.A. Nos.63-R to 66-R of 1990.
2. The facts to be noted are that a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was issued by the Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad, notifying the intention to acquire land measuring 5,586 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Kot Najibullah and 576 Kanals 17 Marlas in village Bandi Gulla for the purpose of setting up an Industrial Estate by the Sarhad Development Authority (i.e. Appellant No.2 in C.A.
Nos.115-P to 1.19-P/90). However, the above area was later on reduced to 3289 Kanals 11 Marlas from village Kot Najibullah and 202 Kanals 11 Marlas from village Bandi Gulla, hereinafter referred to as the land, and a notification under sections 6 and 7 of the Act was issued on 12-6-1985. Notice under section 9 to the interested persons and a declaration under section 10 of the Act were made as per notification dated 18-6-1985. In response to the above notice, the land-owners filed their respective claims before the Land Acquisition Collector inter alia claiming; compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000 per Kanal on the ground that the land is adjacent to the populated area and is located on the roadside and is covered by the irrigation scheme of Right Bank Canal of Khanpur Dam. They also lodged claim for the built-up areas besides fruit/fruitless trees at the rate of Rs.1,500 per tree respectively. The above claim'' was resisted by the Sarhad Development Authority. The Land Acquisition Collector examined a number of witnesses, he also summoned the relevant Revenue Records and also appointed a Commissioner for inspection of the land. After hearing the parties, he gave his award on 21-6-1986. The operative portion of the award reads as follows.
Name of VillageClassification of landArea K-M Rate Total KOT NAJIB- ULLAHCharri 23-09 14,609.60 3,42,595.12 Kund 17-11 7,304.80 1,28,199.24 Maira 2900-11 5,478.60 1,58,90,953.23 Rakkar 26-03 3,652.40 95,510.26 Ghair Mazrooa 321-18 1,826.20 5,87,853.78 Total 3289-12 1,70,45,117.63 Built up property. 3,14,769.00 Compensation of trees.64,031.56 Total: 1,74,23,912.19.
15% Compulsory Acquisition Charges26,13,586.78 Total: 2,00,37,498.97 2,00,37,498.97 6% simple annual interest from 5- 10-1985 to 21-6-1986.8,56,397.17 Total: 2,08,93,896.14 Admissibility in lieu of commercial importance for 100 feet on either side of road at Rs.10,000 per Kanal in addition to the cost of the land as discussed by the paras 1 and 2 of the award, proceedings.K-M 179 - 0417,92,000.00 Total: 2,26,85,896.14 K-M BANDI GULLOCharri 0-07 14,609.60 5,113.36 Maira 196-06 5,478.60 10,20,663.10 Rakkar 2-16 3,652.40 10,226.72 Ghair Mazrooa 13-02 1,826.20 23,923.22 Total 202-11 10,59,926.40 Compensation of built up property 48,408.00 Compensation of trees 646.32 11,08,980.72 15% Compulsory Acquisition charges 1,66,347.11 Total: 12,75,327.83 6% Simple annual interest from 5- 10-1985 to 21-6-1986 54,507.17 Total 13,29,835.00 K-M 3-12 36,000.00 Admissibility in lieu of commercial importance for 100 feet on either side of road at the rate of Rs.10,000 per Kanal in addition to the cost of land as discussed by the paras 1-2 of the award proceedings.
Total: 13,65,835.00
1. Grand total of awarded amount of village Kot Najibullah:Rs,2,26,85,897.14
2. Grand total of awarded amount of village Bandi Gullo:Rs,13.65,835.00 Total Awarded Amount:Rs,2,40,51,731.14 Rupees two crore forty lac fifty one thousand seven hundred and thirty one/paisa fourteen only."
3. As the owners of the land were not satisfied with the above award, they got references under section 18 of the Act made by the Land Acquisition Collector to the District Judge, which were assigned for disposal to the Additional District Judge-II/Judge Acquisition, Haripur. Who maintained the award through his judgment inter alia dated 3-9-1988 with the addition that he enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.2,000 per Kanal on the ground that notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 30-5-1985 but the award was drawn on 21-6-1986 and there was an upward trend of the prices during the intervening period. He also altered the period of simple interest from 5-10-1985 till the date of payment. The operative portion of the above judgment reads as follows:-- "In view of my findings on issues Nos.1 to 8 above objectors are held entitled to Rs.2,000 per Kanal as escalation in addition to the awarded amount as compensation for the land in dispute. Besides, the objectors shall also be entitled to 15% by way of compulsory, acquisition charges and 6% simple interest on the enhanced amount from 5-10-1985 i.e. The date of possession till the date of payment. Parties are however left to bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly."
The above judgment was followed by the learned Additional District Judge in the other connected references made by the Land Acquisition Collector. Against the above judgments of the learned Additional District Judge, aforesaid R.F.As were filed by the land-owners as well as inter alia N.- W.F.P. Government, which were disposed of by the above judgments and whereby the amount of compensation for Maira land was increased from Rs.5,478.60 to Rs.10,334 per Kanal and for 100 feet strip of land on either side of the road, the amount of compensation was increased from Rs.10,000 to Rs.20,000 per Kanal. Thereupon, most of the land--owners filed direct appeals; and some of the land-owners and N. W.F.P. Government filed petitions for leave to appeal, which were granted.
4. In support of the above appeals filed by the land-owners, Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan, learned SrASC appearing for the appellants, has submitted the following contentions:--
(i) that the classification of the major portion of the land as Maira land was not warranted by the material on record as factually it was Nehri land;
(ii) that since the land was acquired on behalf of Sarhad Development Authority which is a company, the compulsory acquisition charges should have been paid at the rate of 25%o and not at the rate of 15% awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and maintained by the Courts below;
(iii) that by virtue of the amendment in section 28 of the Act made by Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Act (III of 1969), the land--owners were entitled to 8% compound interest on account of non--payment of the amount in terms of the above section;
(iv) that the Land Acquisition Collector as well as two Courts below were not justified in treating 100 feet strip of the land on either side of the road having commercial potentials instead of treating the entire Khasra Nos. Which abutted the road.
The other learned counsel appearing for the land-owners adopted the arguments of Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan.
Mr. J.D. Akbarji, learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., appearing for the Government of N.-W.F.P. And the other official appellants, has urged as under:--
(i) that neither the learned Additional District Judge nor the High Court was justified in modifying the award by granting additional amounts;
(ii) that the Land Acquisition Collector has rightly classified the land for the purpose of compensation;
(iii) that the land-owners were entitled to 15% compulsory acquisition charges and not 25% as the land was acquired for public purposes;
(iv) that even the grant of Rs.10,000 per Kanal in addition to Rs.5478.60 per Kanal for 100 feet strip of the land on either side of the road was not justified;
(v) that the land-owners are not entitled to any further relief.
5. Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan has raised objection in respect of the appeals filed by the N.-W.F.P.
Government on the ground of limitation and has urged that the same are liable to be dismissed.
He has also submitted that even on merits the Government's appeals warrant dismissal.
6. Before touching upon the merits of the case, we may take up the question of limitation. It seems that Civil Appeals Nos.1-P, 4-P to 9-P, 11-P and 27-P of 1990 filed by some of the land-owners are also barred by time by 2 to 15 days. Whereas, the N.-W.F.P. Government appeals, if they are to be treated as direct appeals, they are time-barred by about 33 days, but if the same are to be treated as appeals with the leave of the Court, the same are within time. Since we are going to examine the judgments in connection with the appeals which are within time filed by the land-owners, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the aforesaid Civil Appeals Nos.1-P, 4-P to 9-P, 11-P and 27- P of 1990 with a view to avoid conflicting judgments. As regards the appeals filed by the Government of N:-W.F.P, we are inclined to condone the delay, if any, in filing of the above appeals as we have condoned the delay in the aforesaid Civil Appeals of the land-owners.
7. We may observe that even otherwise, in our view, it is not necessary to condone the delay in respect of the appeals filed by the N.-W.F.P. Government as they have been filed with the leave of the Court. There is no delay in filing of the above appeals if they are not to be treated as direct appeals under sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Article 185 of the Constitution read with section 54 of the Act. point out that a right to file a direct appeal under sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of Article. 185 is distinct from a petition for leave to appeal under clause (3) of Article 185 of the Constitution, inasmuch as under the former provision, a party has a legal right to rile a direct appeal, whereas there is no such legal right to obtain leave as a matter of right under clause (3) of Article 185, and secondly, the period of limitation is also different. Whereas, for filing a direct appeal, the period of limitation provided is thirty days under Rule 2 of Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and for a petition for leave, the period of limitation is sixty days under Rule 1, Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
8. We are inclined to hold that if a party loses his right to file a direct appeal because of the limitation, he may invoke clause (3) of Article 185 of the Constitution for a petition for leave to appeal, which the Court may either grant or decline either on the ground that the party should have availed of a direct appeal or for the reason that the petition for leave to appeal has no merits.
In the present case, petitions for leave to appeal filed by the N.-W.F.P. Government were within time and were granted by this Court. No objection till the date of hearing was raised by any party. In our view, it will not be just and proper to dismiss the appeals of N.-W.F.P. Government at the stage of regular hearing. Even otherwise as observed, they are within time as they have been filed with the leave of the Court under clause (3) of Article 185 of the Constitution. In this regard, it may be pertinent to refer to the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi v. Messrs Lyallpur Cold Storage, Lahore Road, Lyallpur and others (PLD 1987 SC 436), in which this Court condoned the delay of ten days under Rule 2 of Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, on the ground that the question involved in the case was of public importance.
9. Reverting to the above first contention of Mr.Abdul Hakim Khan that the classification of the major portion of the land as Maira land was not warranted by the material on record as factually it was Nehri land, it may be observed that from the above-quoted portion of the award, it is evident that the Land Acquisition Collector has classified various portions of the land as Charri, Kund, Maira, Rakkar and Ghair Mazrooa. The above classification is founded on the basis of the material on record including the Commissioner's report after site inspection. The above classification has been maintained by the learned Additional District Judge as well as by the High Court. In this view of the matter, we are unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan that the major portion of the land has been wrongly classified as Maira.
10. Then, it was urged by him that while determining the amount of compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector as well the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the potentials of the land and awarded the amount less than what was justified even on the basis of the material on record.
On the other hand, Mr. J.D. Akbarji, learned Advocate-General, has urged that the learned Additional District Judge and the High Court were not justified in enhancing the amount of compensation referred to hereinabove.
11. From the material on record, we find that there are inter alia Exhs.O.W/1/2, 1/3, O.W. 1/Q.1 in the file of R.FA. No. 50 of 1988 (which is covered by Civil Appeal No. 47'of 1990). The above first document contains the details of the sale transactions in respect of the land situated in Kot Majibullah effected during the period from 29-5-1984 to 29-5-1985 for the construction purposes. The average price works out to be Rs.37,333.20 per Kanal. Exh.O.W.l/3 also contains the sale transactions of land situated in Kot Najibullah effected between the above period for the purpose of construction and for no purpose specified, the average price according to the above exhibit comes to Rs.10,334 per Kanal and whereas, Exh. OW 1/Q.1 also relates to the sale transactions effected during the above period in respect of land situated in Kot Najibullah without specifying the purpose, the average price of which comes to Rs.4,743.80 per Kanal. It may be pointed out here that in Exh. OW 1/3 the words " Baray tamiri Abadi " have been written in the column under the caption " Noiete inteqal" against 16 out of 32 entries, whereas, the above column is shown blank against the remaining 16 entries. However, the sizes of the above plots, namely, 5 marlas, 10 marlas, 16 marlas etc. Indicate that the majority out of the above sale transactions, were effected for construction purpose. It may further be observed that Exh.O.W.l/Q.1 also relates to the above period in respect of the sale transactions of the land situated in Kot Najibullah without any remark as to the purpose for which the above transactions were effected. The average price of the above sale transactions works out to be Rs.4,743.80 per Kanal. The Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of the above exhibits and other documentary evidence had assessed the amount of compensation for Maira land at Rs.5,478.60 instead of Rs.4,743.80 indicated in above Exh.O.W.l/Q.1. For potentialities of the strip of 100 feet of land on either side of road, he awarded an additional amount of Rs.10,000 per Kanal for the above strip of land. The learned Additional District Judge upon reference under section 18 of the Act, maintained the above two figures but as observed, granted an additional sum of Rs.2,000 per Kanal for the alleged delay in giving of the award. The question, whether the learned Additional District Judge was justified in awarding the above additional sum of Rs.2,000 per Kanal, will be dealt with hereinbelow. The High Court increased the amount of compensation in respect of Maira land from Rs.5,478.60 to Rs.10,334 per Kanal and for the above strip of 100 feet land on either side of the road, the additional amount was increased from Rs.10,000 per Kanal to Rs.20,000 per Kanal, solely relying upon Exhs.O.W.2/3 and 2/4 which are equivalent to the aforesaid Exhs.O.W.l/2 and 1/3.
In our view, the High Court failed to take into consideration the above important document Exh.O.W.l/Q.1, on the basis of which average price works out to Rs.4,743.80 per Kanal. This was the average on the basis of the sale transactions effected during the year preceding to the date of the notification. The High Court erred in holding that the Land Acquisition Collector has not relied upon any basis in the form of any yearly, five-yearly or Makhroot average prices of the land acquired. It is also incorrect that the Land Acquisited Collector had not taken into consideration the potentials while determining the above amount. In this regard, it may be pertinent to reproduce his following observations:-- "The land under acquisition is at a distance of 2.5 Kilometre from the habitated area of village Kot Najibullah but the population has not so far been extended to this area. However, some of the area of both the villages i.e. Kot Najibullah and Bandi Gullo certainly falls on either side of Haripur Taxila Road to which a little bit commercial importance adheres, hence a limit of 100 feet on either side of the road in both the villages for the area under acquisition is fixed herewith as the criterion for this purpose and in this pattern an area of 182 kanals 16 marlas is so covered and it is deemed proper that this area should fetch a sum of Rs.10,000 per kanal in addition to the prevailing rate according to average annual rate but it is worth mentioning that the amount so awarded be debar-red from all sorts of interest or compulsory acquisition charges etc."
12. We are inclined to hold that the High Court was not justified in disturbing the above concurrent finding of the Land Acquisition Collector and of the Additional District Judge.
Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan was at pains to submit that the future prospects of the land were not taken into consideration. In this regard, he has relied upon the following cases:--
(i) Banaras Khan etc. v. Chairman, WAPDA etc. PLD 1982 SC 100;
(ii) Fazalur Rahman and others v. General Manager, S.I.D.B. And another (PLD 1986 SC 158;
(iii) Mrs. Gunj Khatoon and another v. The Province of Sindh through Secretary, Revenue Department, Karachi and another 1987 SCMR 2084;
(iv) Malik Aman and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (PLD 1988 SC 32);
(v) Siddiq and others v. The Deputy Commissioner, East Karachi and another (1988 SCMR 87).
13. Suffice to observe that in the above-cited cases, the following principles of law have been enunciated:--
(i) That an 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 of 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 prices on which similar land situated in the vicinity was sold during the preceding 12 months and not 6-7 years may be considered including other factors like potential value etc.
14. We are inclined to hold that the Land Acquisition Collector has not violated any of the principles enunciated hereinabove, if he would not have taken into consideration the potentials of the land, he would not have awarded the compensation for Maira land at the aforesaid rates of Rs.5,478.60 and additional amount of Rs.10,000 per kanal for 100 feet strip of land on either side of the road. He awarded compensation at the same rate for Maira land situated in Bandi Gullo though the average sale price of the above village for the period in question was less. In this regard, he has made the following observations:-- "The area of both the villages being contiguous, make a compact block. However, in some classes of land, the difference in the rate according to Revenue Record exists. This may be due to the socio-economic conditions of the inhabitants of the two different villages, conducting transactions amongst them.
The Government is acquiring the land for establishment of production units, hence a lenient view of the case enables me to bring the rate of any class of land in one village being lesser than the same class in the other village at par to the rate whichever is more. This will safeguard the interest of the owners, whose lands lying in the same compact block had to receive lesser rate th4n their contiguous lands."
15. Similarly he has dilated upon the question, whether the land is situated close to the inhabitated area which is evident from the above-quoted portion of the award relating to the grant of additional sum of Rs.10,000 per kanal. He has also dilated upon the question, whether any portion of the land could be irrigated on account of operation of Canal Irrigation System from Khanpur Dam and has made the following observations:---- "With the operation of Canal Irrigation system from Khanpur Dam the area was included in Chakbandi and distributaries were also dug out. In order to satisfy this claim/demand of owners, Revenue Extra Assistant Commissioner, Abbottabad was deputed to survey and carry out the spot inspection to find out effects of this new irrigation system on the land under acquisition whose report bearing No. 511/Rev. EAC dated 14-5-1985 (available on record) revealed that the canal has actually been constructed, area included in Chakbandi but the land under acquisition cannot possibly be irrigated by thus system.
The existing Canal System is a substandard and defective one, the altitudinal-zonation of canal is lower than the area for which it is meant for, in other words we can say that the-area is purely uncommanded one, meaning thereby no remedial action can be taken by the canal supervising Authorities. Secondly the Revenue Record shows that the area is un-irrigated which truly tallies with the spot hence in absence of any other supporting material to the claim of the owner, I am left with no other alternative except to stick to the facts, hence am of the view to drop this claim of the owners:'
16. The High Court has not gone into the matter as deep as the Land Acquisition Collector, who had the advantage of having entire Revenue Record available with him and having the personal knowledge of the area and its location.
17. Reverting to the question, whether the learned Additional District Judge was justified in awarding an additional sum of Rs.2,000 per kanal on account of alleged delay in giving of .The award, it may be pertinent to reproduce the reasoning found favour with him, which reads as follows:----- "There is a gap of one year in the said notification and the ultimate acquisition of land. During this period of one year the prices of lands have certainly increased. There is no explanation as to why the land in dispute was not acquired soon after the publication of notification under section 4 of the Act and. As such it is the acquiring department which is at fault and responsible for delay in drawing the award: Objectors owners cannot be penalized for no fault of them. Keeping in view the fact that notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 30-5-1985 and the award was drawn on 21-6-1986 and there was an upward trend of the prices during the intervening period it would be fair to allow further enhancement of Rs.2,000 per kanal to the objectors/owners on the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in SCMR 1985 page 767 and by the Honourable Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, in R.F.A. No. 82 of 1986 decided on 9-9-1987. Therefore, objectors are held entitled to Rs.2,000 per kanal in addition to the awarded amount as compensation for the land in dispute."
18. In this regard, it may be pertinent to mention that by North West Frontier Province Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act v. Of 1987), the following section 48-A was incorporated in the Act on or about 19-3-1987, which reads as follows:---- "48-A. Compensation to be awarded when land not acquired within one year.-(1) If within a period of one year from the date of publication of declaration under section 6 in respect of any land, the Collector has not made an award under section 11 in respect to such land, the owner of the land shall, unless he has been to a material extent responsible for the delay, be entitled to receive compensation for the damage suffered by him in consequence of the delay.
(2) The provisions of Part II of this Act shall apply, so far as may be possible, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section."
There was no parallel provision in the Act. The above amendment may not be applicable to the present case as the land was acquired and the award was given prior to the aforesaid amendment. However, it seems that in the present case, notifications under sections 6 and 7 were issued as observed hereinabove on 12-6-1985, whereas the award was given on 21-6-1986 i.e. One year and nine days later. Keeping in view the area of the land acquired and the number of land-- owners/claimants and the material on record, it cannot be urged that there was unnecessary delay on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector in making the award. It may be observed that the learned Additional District Judge has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of N: W.F.P. Through Collector, Abbottabad Land Acquisition and others v. Haji Ali Asghar Khan and others (1985 SCMR 767), in which the amount of compensation was increased by this Court from Rs.23,000 per kanal to Rs.25,000 per kanal on the ground that the award was made about two years later from the date of execution and there was an upward trend in prices of the land. This case has no application for the reason that in the present case, the award was made within about a year and not two years as was the case in the above-reported decision. In our view, there was no basis before the learned Additional District Judge for awarding an additional sum of Rs.2,000 per kanal for the reasons found favour with him quoted hereinabove.
19.Reverting to Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan's second contention that since the land was acquired on behalf of Sarhad Development Authority which is a company, the compulsory acquisition charges should have been paid at the rate of 25% and not at the rate 15% awarded by the' Land Acquisition Collector and maintained by the Courts below, it may be observed that in furtherance of his above contention, he has submitted that Sarhad Development Authority is a corporate body by virtue of section 3 of the Ordinance (Ordinance XX of 1972) whereby it was incorporated and section 3 (e) of the Act defines the expression "Company" means a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882, or under the (English) Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, or incorporated by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or by any Pakistan law, or by a Royal Charter or Letters Patent and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and a registered society within the meaning of the Co--operative Societies Act, 1912;" and, therefore, it is a company.
Reliance was placed by him on the case of State of Punjab and others v. Raja Ram and others (1982 PSC 997), in which the Indian Supreme Court held that Food Corporation of India was a corporate autonomous body having a separate entity from 'Government, was a company within the meaning section 3(e). On the basis of the above provision, it was urged by him that by virtue of subsection
(2) of section 23 of the Act, the land-owners were entitled to 25% compulsory acquisition charges and not 15%. In this regard, it may be pertinent to reproduce subsection, (2) of section 23 of the Act, which was incorporated by Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance (49 of 1969) and which reads as follows:- "(2) In addition to the market-value of the lands as above provided, the Court shall award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, if the acquisition has been made for a public purpose and a sum of twenty-five per centum on such market-value if the acquisition has been made for a Company."
20. A persual of the above section indicates that it has two parts, namely, (i) if the land is acquired for a public purpose, the Court is to award 15 per centum .On the determined market value in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition, and (ii) 25 per centum on such market value if the acquisition has been made for a Company. The above two parts are to be read disjunctively as the word "and" can be read "or" and vice versa if the context of the language of the provisions of a statute so requires. It cannot be denied that the land was acquired for a public purpose for establishing an Industrial Estate for the development of N.-W.F.P. We may observe that it seems that the above point was not urged before the Courts below and, therefore, we are not inclined even otherwise to entertain the above submission.
21. As regards the third submission of Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan that by virtue of the amendment in section 28 of the Act made by Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Act (III of 1969), the land-owners were entitled 8% compound interest on account of non-payment of the amount in terms of the above section, it may be observed that he has relied upon the amendment made by section 2 of the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Act (III of 1969), amending section 28 of the Act providing that the words "interest on such excess at the rate of 6 per cetum" the words "compound interest on such excess at the rate of 8 per centum" were substituted. However, he has overlooked the amendment made by the Land Acquisition (N.-W.F.P. Amendment) Ordinance (V of 1983), whereby simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the above excess sum has been made payable. In this view of the matter, the above contention is devoid of any force.
22. This leads us to the last submission of Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan that the Land Acquisition Collector as well as two Courts below were not justified in treating 100 feet strip of the land on either side of the road having commercial potentials instead of treating the entire Khasra Nos. Which abutted the road, it may be observed that he was unable to point out any statutory provision on the basis of which, the land-owners were entitled to receive additional amount of compensation on the area of the entire Khasra Nos. Of which certain portions were abutting either side of the road. The learned Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of the sketch (Exh. OW 1/4) has allowed additional compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000 per kanal on 100 feet strip of land on either side of the road, the total amount of which comes to over Rs. Eighteen lacs. The above portion of the award has been maintained by the learned Additional District Judge but was modified by the High Court on account of parity of reason that since the rate of the amount of compensation for the land was more or less double, the rate of the additional amount of compensation was also doubled. We are inclined to hold that the award of the Land Acquisition Collector on the above question was just and proper, which was concurred with by the Additional District Judge. There seems to be no justifiable reason to pay the above additional amount on the area of entire Khasra Nos. Involved.
23. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeals filed by the land-owners are dismissed with no order as to costs, whereas the appeals filed by the N.-W.F.P. Government are allowed partly with no order as to costs, to the extent of setting aside the portion of the judgments of the learned Additional District Judge, whereby he awarded an additional sum of Rs.2,000 per kanal on account of the alleged delay, and the portion of the judgment of the High Court, whereby the rate of compensation for the land was enhanced from Rs.5,478.60 to Rs.10,334 per kanal and Rs.20,000 in place of Rs.10,000 per Kanal as additional compensation for 100 feet strip on either side of the road.
However, the alteration of the period of the payment of simple interest 6%, namely, from 5-10-1985 till the date of payment, made by the learned Additional District Judge is maintained.
24. Before parting with the above judgment, we may observe that Mr. Abdul Hakim Khan, learned counsel appearing for some of the land-owners, while arguing the above appeals had invited our attention to the two orders dated 21-4-1990 passed by this Court, declining petitions for leave to appeal bearing C.P.LA. Nos. 342-P/89, 343-P/89, 349-P/89 and 347-P and 348-P/89 and contended that this Court has upheld the grant of compensation at higher rates than what was granted by the High Court in the judgments under appeal. We are inclined to initiate suo motu review of the above two orders of this Court. Show-- cause notices be issued to the parties for a date in office calling upon them to show cause why the leave should not be granted and the above orders be recalled.