' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above 25 Civil Appeals which are directed against various judgments all dated 11-10-1995 of a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench at Abbottabad passed in R.F.As. Nos. Mentioned in the title of this judgment, which were filed by the respondents against the judgments of the Referee Judge for enhancement of the compensation amounts allowed for the acquired land, allowing the same by enhancing the amounts of compensation to Rs,52,998 per Kanal in case of irrigated land and Rs,31,362 per Kanal pertaining to unirrigated land on the basis of its previous judgment in the case of Sarhad Development Authority v. Fakhre Alam in R.F.A. No, 3 of 1991.
2. The brief facts 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 of the Government to acquire land measuring 5586 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. 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. It seems that under various notifications issued under sections 6 and 7 of the Act, various pieces of land were acquired, in respect whereof various Awards were rendered which became the subject-matter of further litigation. The matter had also come up before this Court in the form of various appeals which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 13-7-1991 titled Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v.
The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others (1991 SCM R 2164).
The present appeals relate to Award No,2 dated 22-6-1988, Award No,3 dated 22-6-1988. Award No,7 dated 27-6-1990 and Award No,8 dated 27-6-1990. In all the above appeals the High Court has enhanced the amounts of compensation in respect of unirrigated Charri land from Rs,19,358.40 to Rs,35,333 per Kanal and Maira land from Rs,7,259,40 to Rs,20,909 per Kanal; whereas in respect of irrigated Charri land from Rs,31,941.36 to Rs,52,998 per Kanal and Maira land from Rs,10,889.10 to Rs,31,362 per Kanal by the judgments under appeal. The Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad, and others have, therefore, filed the aforementioned appeals.
3. In support of the above appeals Mr. M. Sardar Khan, learned Sr. ASC appearing for the appellants, has vehemently contended that the learned Judges of the Division Bench have not discussed the evidence brought on record by the parties for the purpose of arriving at the correct amounts of compensation but relied upon a previous judgment of the Peshawar High Court in aforesaid R.F.A.
No,3 of 1991 in the case of Sarhad Development Authority v. Fakhre Alam. It has been pointed out by him that against the aforesaid judgment Sarhad Development Authority had filed Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 335-P to 337-P of 1995 in this Court, but the same were declined on the ground of limitation by an order dated 26-2-1995. He has further invited our attention to the case of Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others (supra) in order to contend that in respect of very land this Court had upheld the amounts of compensation inter alia @ Rs,5,478.60 per Kanal for Maira land @ Rs,10,000 per Kanal for a strip of 100 feet of land on either side of the road and that the additional amount of Rs,2,000 per Kanal for the alleged delay in giving the Award granted by the Additional District Judge in the above report in the case of Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others (supra) was set aside. In this regard, it will be advantageous to reproduce paras. 14 and 23 of the aforesaid report, which reads as under:-- "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-ecomomic 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 than their contiguous lands. "
23. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeals filed by the landowners 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 payment of simple interest 6% namely, from 5-10-1985 till the date of payment, made by the learned Additional District Judge is maintained."
'It has been further urged by Mr. M. Sardar Khan that the aforementioned judgment of this Court was brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the Division Bench but the same was not taken into consideration.
' Reference has also been made to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur District, Bahawalpur and others v. Col. Abdul Majeed and others (1997 SCM R 1692), in which the case of Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others (supra) was cited with approval in paragraph 11 thereof and the principles on which the amount of compensation is to be assessed were enunciated.
4. It may be observed that from the judgments under appeal, it is evident that the learned Judges of the Division Bench have not adverted to the evidence which was brought on record by the parties. In our view, it would have been appropriated if they would have determined the question of amount of compensation, inter alia, with reference to the evidence brought by the parties on record in respect of each set of the Award. The above unreported judgment in the case of Sarhad Development Authority v. Fakhre Alam rendered in R.F.A. No,3 of 1991 could not have been the sound basis to assess the market value of the acquired land, as in respect of the same hand the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others (supra) is also in the field, which should also have been taken into consideration.
5. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that it will be in the interest of justice if the above matters are remanded to the High Court. We would, accordingly, allow the aforesaid appeals, set aside the judgments under appeal and remand the case to the High Court with the direction to decide the aforementioned R.F.As. Afresh as indicated above. Since the parties have been litigating for quite considerable period, the High Court should give preference to the above R.F.As. And should expedite disposal of the same. However, there will be no order as to costs.