1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.---Leave to appeal is sought for challenging a Division Bench Judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad delivered on 18-5-1994 in R.F.A.
2. No, 41 of 1988.
3. ' The case relates to acquisition of lands situated in village Swabi Maria for construction of Tarbela Dam. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Act') was issued on 3-5-1967 while the Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 25-6-1973, assessing compensation on basis of the entries in Jamabandi for the year 1962-63. The affected persons moved under section 18 of the Act for reference to Civil Court. They succeeded in obtaining an ex parte decree from the Court of Additional District Judge, Haripur on 26-3-1977. The ex parte decree was declined to be set aside and the matter went to the High Court which set aside the ex parte decree on 6-11-1984 and referred the case to the Acquisition Judge for fresh decision. The Acquisition Judge gave his judgment on 4-5-1988 excluding from consideration copy of a judgment dated 16-4-1979 and copy of a judgment dated 13-4-1980 on the ground that evidence recorded in one case cannot be imported in another case. Judgment by the Acquisition Judge dated 4-5-1988 was challenged in Peshawar High Court which decided the same under judgment dated 13-2-1990. Said judgment was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No,84-P of 1990 which was decided on 12-8-1992. Under said judgment, this Court remanded the case to the Peshawar High Court after observing that the High Court cannot rely on its previous judgment in RFA No, 37/84 by which judgment dated 16-4-1984 by the Additional District Judge was maintained.
4. It was also observed that the Khasra Girdawari which formed the part of the ex parte proceedings, was not relied upon or adduced in evidence in post-remand proceedings and even any secondary evidence about the Khasra Girdawari was not produced and no permission was sought for that.
5. Consequently the High Court could not rely upon the copy of Khasra Girdawari. These observations made by learned Full Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 12-8-1990 were binding on the parties and on the Peshawar High Court and are binding on this Bench hearing this matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded, that besides said evidence the petitioners had not adduced any other evidence.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that this Court can take a judicial note of the inflation and can appreciate that value of the acquired land in 1967 was not the same as on 25-6-1973 when award was given or on 4-5-1988 when the Acquisition Judge gave fresh judgment.
6. In support the learned counsel relied on the case of N.-W.F.P. Through Collector, Abbottabad Land Acquisition v. Haji Ali Asghar Khan (1985 SCM R 767) where congnizance was taken of the upward trend in the prices of the land. The learned counsel for the petitioners also cited the case of Sher Ahmed Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector (PLD 1978 Peshawar 138) in which the view taken was that where lands acquired were of same quality it was inequitous to allow enhanced compensation in one case and low compensation in another case. Next case relied upon was that of Malik Aman v.
7. Land Acquisition Collector (PLD 1988 Supreme Court 32) where it was observed as follows:-- "In the present case which is identical to the case of Sub. Haider Zaman v. Government of N.-W.F.P.
8. (1987 SCM R. 465) the petitioner has not brought any evidence on the record to show as to how much prices of the land in question had arisen during the 7 years taken by the Collector in announcing the award. As such, we have no basis for determining the amount of increase in the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled. Had such evidence been brought on the record by the petitioners we are sure that the learned Collector himself or, in any case, the learned trial Court and the High Court would have taken this factor into consideration while determining the market value of the land for the purpose of awarding compensation to the petitioners."
9. Although the cited cases are not exactly on the point at issue, and matter has already remained a football between the different Courts and the parties have exhausted their opportunity to lead evidence, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal to consider, whether judicial note can be taken about the increase in price of the acquired land, in absence of any evidence on the point and, if so, what should be the criterion for such increase in price of the acquired land.