' MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---Government of N.- W.F.P. And two others seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, Abbottabad, dated 6-12-1994 whereby their Regular First Appeal and that of the respondents both filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were dismissed.'
2. A piece of land comprising in Khasra Nos.678/1, 679/1, 699/1 and 716/1 situate in village Sultanpur, Tehsil4 and District, Abbottabad and belonging to the respondents was acquired by the petitioners by a Notification under section 4 of the Act issued on 26-4-1974. The Collector, Land Acquisition awarded a compensation of Rs,20,000 per canal. The respondents filed a reference under section 18 of the Act which was heard and disposed of by the learned Senior Civil, Judge, Abbottabad, exercising the powers of District Judge under the Act. The compensation was enhanced to Rs,43,428.60 per Canal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest per annum till 22-5-1983 and 6% per annum simple interest with effect from 23-5-1983 till final payment.
3. The petitioners and the respondents felt aggrieved by such an enhancement of compensation and filed two Regular First Appeals which were dismissed by the High Court by virtue of the impugned judgment.
4. Mr. Mursaleen Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the land in dispute was admittedly of 'Bahar-Di-Abi' classification and the compensation had rightly been adjudged by the Collector keeping in view its quality, location and potentiality. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the learned Senior Civil Judge as well as the learned Judges in the High Court committed legal error in enhancing the compensation without any valid premise.
5. It appears that the Collector, Land Acquisition was also of the view that the land in dispute was a potential building site as all around buildings, commercial and residential, had been constructed but still proceeded not to offer the respondents comparable price of a building site. The reason that weighed for this low price was:-- "It cannot be denied that the market value of the land in question has at present gone up much more. But it is an admitted fact that the establishment of the P.O.F. (Pakistan Ordnance Factory) has mainly contributed to this increase in the market value of the land in the surrounding areas, as such the rapid increase in the market value and the contribution of the P.O.F. In this regard, on the other hand, would justify fixing a balance price for the land in question. In the year, 1977 Rs,20,000 per canal was fixed for the land acquired for the construction of sewerage disposal plant vide Award dated 14-3-1977 announced by the L.A.C., Abbottabad. It would not be proper if lesser amount of price is fixed at this stage, when as already discussed, the value of the lands in view of the situation has increased heavily. In view of the above, I consider it justified to fix Rs,20,000 per canal for the land acquired in village Sultanpur." #TBS 9. We therefore, find that.The two Courts below have in determining the #TBE ' From the evidence adduced before the learned Senior Civil Judge, he reached the conclusion that potential value of the disputed land was much higher still the Collector Land Acquisition had not awarded the price fairly and justly. Relying on the Schedules Exh. P.W.5/1 and Exh. P.W.5/2 of one yearly average price furnished by Abdul Basit, Saddar Office Qanungo (P.W. 5) where under the prices of Rs,34,615 and Rs,43,428.60 per canal were worked out. The petitioners had produced no evidence in rebuttal. The learned Senior Civil Judge on a consideration of the same adjudged Rs,43,428.60 per Kanal to be the market value of the land and also awarded it accordingly.
6. The learned Judges in the High Court re-examined the evidence and other material produced by the respondents and upheld the conclusion with regard to the assessment of the compensation.
7. The learned Standing Counsel then assailed the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge and that of the Division Bench on legal plane saying, firstly, that the respondents had received the compensation without protest; secondly, that the reference was barred by limitation and; thirdly, that the respondents having not raised objections to the Collector as envisaged by section 5-A of the Act were disentitled to file objections. Except for the plea of bar of limitation, the other two objections were not raised either before the learned Referee Judge or pressed before the High Court. These two pleas have been taken for the first time in this Court. Nonetheless, the first ground of attack with regard to conduct of the respondents stands repelled by the observations of the learned Senior Civil Judge in the opening part of the discussion on issue No,1 wherein he has made specific reference to the Acquaintance Roll Exh. P. W.1/2 which confirmed that the respondents had received the compensation under protest. Invocation of the provision of section 5-A of the Act by the petitioners is misconceived. Provision of section 5-A ibid enjoins a hearing to a person who is entitled to oppose the acquisition of the property itself, and is undoubtedly not attracted at the subsequent stage of the objection petition as contemplated under section 18 supra. These two objections are thus misconceived. Again notwithstanding raising the plea of limitation, it was not pursued either in the Court of the Referee Judge or before the High Court. Nonetheless, there is string of case-law including: (i) Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. v. First Assistant Judge,, Hyderabad, West Pakistan and 4 others (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Karachi 826) and (ii) Bashir Ahmad and others v. The Collector, Multan (PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lahore 292) laying down the principle that the Collector has the jurisdiction to decide the question whether an application made under section 18 of the Act is time-barred or not and to refuse to make a reference if it is found to have been made beyond the period of limitation. . From reading of sections 20 and 21 of the Act together, it is clear that the inquiry by the Referee Court is restricted to a consideration of the objectifies raised by the interested parties in accordance with subsection (1) of section 18 of the Act. It does not contemplate the decision on the question of limitation because that apparently is a matter for the Collector to decide.
8. The Schedule Exh. P.W.5/2 worked out by Abdul Basit, Saddar Office Qanungo (P.W.5) was accepted to be truly representing the fair compensation both as regards classification of the land being 'Bahar-Di-Abi,'. And also the potentiality thereof.
9. We therefore find that the two courts below have in determining the market value of the land in dispute examined all aspects of the evidence and have drawn a conclusion on facts which is fully borne-out from the record and does not merit further examination. Hence leave to appeal is refused.