' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal No,1087 of 1998 to 1138 of 1998 and C.P. No, 1144 of 1998, arising out of consolidated judgment dated 20-1-1998 passed by a learned. Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in R.F.A. No,'14 of 1998.
2. The dispute herein relates to compensation of land measuring 3366 Kanals situate in 11 revenue 'estates of Rawalpindi District namely, Lakhan, Jhawara, Kallory, Kotha Kalam Mohra Faqiran, Kotha Khurd, Malik Pur, Jarahi, Mohri Gazan, Kathana and Dhaman in Tehsil Rewalpindi, which was acquired for the purpose of use as 'Dhamial Air Field", in respect whereof Notification No, M-VII- 357/1044, dated 1-10-1966, was issued under the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The award was given on 28-9-1967 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi. The land was divided into 3 blocks and compensation was assessed at a sum of Rs,700 per Kanal to Rs,4,000 per Kanal for various kinds of land acquired. Fifteen per cent. Compulsory acquisition charges were also allowed on the assessed price.
3. Objection petitions claiming references under section 18 of the Act, were filed before Administrative Civil Judge/Referee Judge, Rawalpindi. References so sent were disposed of by the learned Referee Judge by two separate orders dated 24-7-1971 and 31-7-1972. By the first order the learned Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs,11,000 per Kanal for land situate in Mohri Ghazan and Rs,10,000 per Kanal for land of other villages. Appeals filed by Government against above awards were accepted, judgments impugned therein were set aside and cases were remanded to the Referee Court for fresh decision. Appeals filed by landowners before this Court against the above judgment of the High Court remanding the cases, were dismissed.
4. In the second round of litigation, after remand, the learned Senior Civil Judge Referee Judge, Rawalpindi vide judgment dated 30-7-1977 held that village 'Mohri Ghazan' was of the value of Rs,8,000 per Kanal and assessed the same at Rs,8,000 per Kanal. Land in other villages was assessed at different rates ranging from Rs,4,000 to Rs,7,000 per Kanal. As many as 27 appeals were filed by the Government, petitioners herein, before the High Court at Rawalpindi, on 20-1-1998 praying therein for setting aside of the judgment decree of the Referee Judge with the further prayer that the compensation awarded by the Acquisition Collector be maintained. The land owners also filed 26 appeals praying for enhancement of the rate of compensation awarded by the Referee Judge. All the above appeals were heard and disposed of together by the High Court through the impugned consolidated judgment, whereby the appeals of the Government were dismissed and those of the landowners were allowed to the extent that they were held entitled to have Rs,700 per Kanal more than that of what they had been held entitled by the Referee Court vide judgment/decree dated 30-7-1977 plus 15% solation and also have benefit of sections 28 and 34 of the Act.
5. Ch. Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners argued that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the landowners before the High Court for enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land to the extent of Rs,700 per Kanal over and above what had awarded by the Referee Judge in his judgment and decree dated 30-7-1977 alongwith the benefits of sections 28 and 34 of the Act, could not be held as "highly proper and in the interest of all the sides". He further argued that the enhancement of Rs,700 per Kanal with benefit of sections 28 and 34 of the Act, was not allowed on merits but on the basis of suggestion made by the learned counsel for the landowners, which should not have been accepted being improper and unreasonable.
6. The contentions are misconceived. Here, the High Court after considering the testimony of the witnesses and perusal of documentary evidence on record, passed orders for enhancement of compensation, which appear to be just and fair and based on objective standard. The learned Judges of the Division Bench rightly considered the potentiality of the land acquired while passing the impugned judgment, and not on the suggestion of the learned counsel for the land-owners simpliciter, to which no exception can be taken in these proceedings. Thus, visualized, the enhancement of Rs,700 per KanaIs in addition to what had been assessed by the Referee Judge, Rawalpindi with 15% isolation plus benefit of sections 28 and 34 of the Act by the learned High Court, was quite justified. A finding of fact has been recorded by the High Court that, "the acquired land was situate in the revenue estates which were situate within the limits of Rawalpindi Cantonment. These were accessible to urban amenities like roads, supply of gas, electricity, telephone, etc. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time of the notification, some portion of the land was under occupation of the Air Field while the other was under crops. We have, therefore, no difficulty in saying that the acquired land was urban agricultural land with a potential of being used for residential purpose". This finding of fact is not disputed. Even otherwise, such a finding is not liable-to be interfered with in the absence of misreading/disregard of material piece of evidence. This is not the case here. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the impugned judgment, viewed from whatever angle.
7.,. Refer the Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi v. Lieut. General Wajid Ali Khan Burki (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lahore 469), wherein it was held that the best method to work out the market-value is the practical method of a prudent man laid down in section 3 of the Evidence Act to examine and analyse all the material and evidence available on the point and to determine the price which a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller of the acquired land.
' In Pakistan v. Din Muhammad (1983 CLC 1281), it was held that while determining the value of the compensation the market price of the land at the time of acquisition and its potentiality have to be kept into consideration.
' Reference may also be made to Fazalur Rahman v. General Manager, S.I.D.B. (PLD 1986 SC 158), wherein guidelines have been provided for determining the value of the land acquired by the Government and the price which a willing purchaser would give to a willing seller.
' In Province of West Pakistan v. M. Salim Ullah (PLD 1966 SC 547), it was held that the principle enshrined in subsection (1) of section 23 of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation the Court shall take into consideration the market value, loss by reason of severing such land from his other land, acquisition injuriously affecting his other property or his earnings in consequence of change of residence or place of business and damage, if any, resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. It was also held that other injuries or loss which may be suffered by an owner on account of compulsory acquisition be also taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation.
8. It would thus be seen that the enhancement or compensation to the land owners/respondents herein is in conformity with the well-established principles laid down by the superior Courts for determining a fair compensation to be awarded to the owner who is deprived of this land as a result of compulsory acquisition. The well-reasoned impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference. Additionally, the petitions are also barred by 28 days. An application has been moved for condonation of delay but no plausible reason has been advanced for not approaching this Court within time. This circumstance alone is sufficient to render these petitions liable to be dismissed being out of time.
9. Resultantly, the petitions are dismissed being barred by time as well as on merits.