' JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---Brief facts, giving rise to present Writ Petition, are that land measuring 57 Kanals and 19 Marlas situated in village Phari Pura was acquired, under section 53 of N.-W.F.P. Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978, for construction of Ring Road, Peshawar. After the observance of the usual formalities and consideration of relevant Revenue Record and factual position, existing at the spot, the Collector announced the award on 29-7-1991. He accordingly fixed the market value at the rate of Rs,6,211 per Marla.
2. Feeling aggrieved by this award, landowners including petitioner Mumtaz Khan, preferred appeals to the Court of Commissioner Peshawar Division, Peshawar, who, in turn, entrusted the appeals to Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, for adjudication.
3. While modifying the award, the Additional Commissioner remitted the case back to the Collector with the direction to give fresh award, in accordance with law, after giving full opportunity of being heard, to the appellants, barring Mumtaz Khan aforementioned.
4. Except Mumtaz Khan, the other appellants entered into settlement, through negotiation, with the acquiring department by accepting enhanced rate of Rs,9,316 per Marla. The concerned parties signed the private agreement in this context. The award was consequently modified to that extent in favour of such appellants who withdrew their appeals from the Court concerned by virtue of Collector's order dated 21-7-1993.
5. In the circumstances detailed above, Mumtaz Khan appellant remained in the area of litigation.
He claimed compensation Rs,20,000 per Marla on the main ground that the area owned by him is situated in Municipal Corporation, Peshawar and constituted commercial area, abutting on the main road, linking G.T. Road and Dalazak Road together. He further contended that he is not bound nor can be governed by the agreement, signed by the other affectees, whose area is basically agricultural and far away from commercial areas and the link roads.
6. The Collector, vide his abovementioned order dated 21-7-1993, turned down his claim with the result that he assailed his findings by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Peshawar Division , Peshawar, who transferred the same to Additional Commissioner for adjudication.
7. The principal contention of the appellant was that the Collector had totally ignored the locality and the existing market value of the property and that the land, situated as it is, within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Peshawar having frontage on both sides of roads, referred to above, is being sold for Rs,20,000 per Marlas, rather much more. In this respect, reference was made to mutation No,1944 dated 29-6-1991. It was factually found and established that the land owned by the appellant was of commercial nature and therefore far superior to the land of the other affectees. Taking into account the other factor that the land of the appellant is situated on both sides of the road, connecting G.T. Road with Dalazak Road, in a thickly populated area surrounded by shopping centres and trading apartments, it was thought fit and appropriate to increase the compensation rate of the land in question at the rate of Rs,20,000 per Marla.
8. Accordingly the appeal of Mumtaz Khan was accepted to this extent by the Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 30-1-1994. This order is now challenged before us by the P.U.D.B.
Through its Managing Director, by way of this writ petition.
9. The petitioner has raised before us the point involving factual controversies that the enhancement is made in an arbitrary manner without reference to the actual market value prevailing in the area. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, on this aspect of the case and have gone through the relevant record with their assistance, with some degree of care.
10. It is a well-settled principle that writ jurisdiction, in matter of controversy decided on appellate or revisional forum, can only be invoked in cases of orders. Which are either void or coram non judice. Mere illegality in some respect relating to these orders, did not suffice to subject these orders to scrutiny in the exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction. On going through the A grounds mentioned in the body of the writ petition, we do not find that the order of the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, was either void or without lawful authority. Nor do we discern that the he has failed to exercise his jurisdiction legally, misread the evidence or his approach was not lawful or was tained with misrepresentation and patent error. This being so , the decision sought to be impeached cannot be turned down straightaway.
11. On the other hand, it appears to us that the enhancement in the rate of compensation is neither arbitrary nor fanciful. There is no denying of the fact that the area owned by the respondent is situated, on both asides of the road, as detailed above, within the limits of Municipal Corporation, in a populated area flanked by commercial apartments and shopping centres. The same, therefore, eminently falls within the domain of commercial site, pure and simple. It has been successfully demonstrated that a similar piece of land has been sold away @ Rs,20,000 per Marla vide Mutation No,1944 attested in the year 1991, /i,e,, three years earlier to the impugned award framed by the Collector. No counter evidence has been brought on record nor is there any material before us to wipe out the probative value of the mutation relied upon by the Additional Commissioner. The record is destitute of tangible evidence to defer from the assessment made by this functionary. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the enhancement has proceeded on reliable premises.
This writ petition is devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed. Costs to follow the events.