' This regular first appeal has been preferred by Munawar Shah and 8 others being dissatisfied by the judgment, dated 23-2-1994 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Acquisition Judge, Abbottabad whereby the objection of the appellant for the enhancement of compensation was partially accepted.
' Facts of the case briefly stated are that the Collector Land Acquisition, Abbottabad upon the request of the Divisional Director Education (Schools) Hazara Division, Abbottabad acquired 32 kanals of the suit land situated in Revenue Estate (Dhamtaur) Tehsil and District Abbottabad for Scout Camp at 'Takia' by an award, dated 3-6-1981 in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter mentioned as 'The Act').
3. The Collector Land Acquisition assessed the market price of the aforesaid land (Ghair Mazrooha) at the rate of Rs,132.60 per kanal alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges on the basis of one yearly average from 28-11-1978 to 28-11-1979 (from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act) upon the recommendation of the Revenue Authorities.
4. The appellants filed objection petition under section 18/30 of the Act for enhancement of the price of compensation to Rs,50,000 per kanal and for the enhancement of price of trees thereon.
5. The learned Referee Judge after considering both the oral' and documentary evidence ignored the assessm ent of the learned Collector and enhanced the same to Rs,500 per kanal on the basis of one yearly average vide Exh. P.W.1/23 on the file (Cost Yaksala) in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges plus 6% interest from the date of notification till final payment.
6. According to the revenue entries the objectors were shown as tenants-atwill and the suit and as 'Shamilat' land but by virtue of their proprietary rights through mutations Nos.4113, 4123 in the year 1965 they were entitled to receive compensation according to their share in the 'Shamilat' land.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the grounds of the appeal mentioned by him in the memorandum of appeal and contended that the learned Referee Judge had erroneously undervalued the suit land under acquisition ignoring the importance of its location, future potentialities, upwards trend of prices due to inflation and the fact that it was at a short distance from Abbottabad Main Murree Road.
The learned counsel, however, did not press for the enhancement of price of the super-structure and trees.
8. He further contended that the claim of the objectors of Rs,50,000 per kanal was genuine but to our view this claim has not been supported by any tangible evidence. The learned Referee Judge to our mind was not justified in ignoring the criteria of determining the compensation in accordance with law.
9. It is worth mentioning that before the impugned order was passed the objectors had moved an application for the appointment of a commission to assess the market value of land and trees but their application was turned down by the Referee Judge on 18-1-1993. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Referee Judge has not worked out the correct adequate compensation in the matter as it seems to be on low side.
10. In this view of the matter was are inclined to remand back the case to the Referee Judge to appoint a competent Local Commissioner from the Revenue Department to inspect the spot for determination of the adequate compensation in the light of the existing evidence by taking assistance of the Revenue Record, i.e,, Exh.P.W.1/23 (Oost Yaksala) supported by Exh.P.W.1/1 to Exh.P.W.1/3 (Oost Punjsala) and that he should also give the distance and approach of the suit property, to our judicial notice the suit property is not situated on the main Abbottabad Murree Road, and determine an appropriate compensation at the time when the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued. The Referee Judge after his report shall record the evidence of the Commissioner and give proper opportunity to the parties to cross-examine him and thereafter, decided the case afresh positively within 4 months from the passing of this order.
10. Before parting with this judgment we would make it clear that the Referee Judge shall not re- open the entire case and he shall only concentrate his findings on the report of the Commissioner for the compensation of land. However, no claim with regard to the super-structure and trees shall be entertained.
11. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted, the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge/Acquisition Judge, Abbottabad is set aside and the case is remanded back with no order as to costs.