Land Acquisition Collector acquired land for construction of Road Niazi Well to Esak Chountra, Ghundi Mir Khan Khel and Palosa Sar portion situated at Tehsil and District Karak. Collector fixed Rs.10,303.80 per Kanal as compensation alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges and simple interest at the rate of 6% till payment. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector, Rahman Nawaz and others filed objection petition which was referred to the learned Referee Court for determination. The learned Referee Judge after framing as many as 6 issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.38,000 per Kanal. Compulsory acquisition charges and interest were kept intact vide judgment and decree dated 8-3-1997. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and decree the appellants have filed the appeal in hand.
2. Mr. Sardar Shaukat Hayat the learned Additional A.-G. Representing the appellants argued that the Collector had based the award on the basis of available evidence and a very reasonable sum of Rs.10,303.80 per Kanal was fixed. There was no justifica--tion for enhancement of the said amount because there was no evidence on the record to support the claim of respondents/objectors.
3. On the other hand Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate the learned counsel representing the respondents argued that the appellant in the written statement had admitted that the acquired land was 'Chahi' in nature and in adjacent Mauza namely Mitha Khel the one Kanal land rate was Rs.63,636.40 as is clear from Exh.P.W.3/3. The learned Collector had erred in fixing very nominal price for the acquired land without keeping in view its kind and potentiality.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Land measuring 2 Kanals, 3 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.2822, 2823 and 2824 owned by the respondents/objectors was acquired vide Award No.33 dated 3-3-1993 by the Land Acquisition Collector, Karak. The respondents/objectors claimed compensa--tion at the rate of Rs,100,000 per Kanal through objection petition. They also claimed compensation for the trees.
6. In order to prove their case they examined Javed Iqbal, Patwari Halqa as P.W.1, Haji Khanzada, Head Clerk of the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Karak as P.W.3 and Rakham Nawaz one of the objectors appeared as P.W.4.
7. In rebuttal Muhammad Nawaz, Acquisition Assistant, D.C.O. Office, Karak recorded his statement in defence.
8. The learned trial Court also appointed Sadiqur-Rehman's as Local Commissioner who submitted his report Exh.O.W.1/1.
9. It is worth-mentioning that Javed Iqbal, Patwari Halqa was again examined as C. W .1 who placed on record three years average for the years 1991-94 Exh.C.W.1/1 (wrongly given the number).
Thereafter statement of Abdul Wadood, Malik Khan Gul and Khayal Din were also recorded by the learned trial Court but they were not. Cross --examined by the appellants/defendants.
10. The perusal of the above-mentioned evidence shows that the Land Acquisition Collector had considered the acquired land as Barani land and therefore worked out its compensation at the rate of Rs.10,303.80 per Kanal as is evident from the copy of Award Exh. D.W.1/1. Factual position is that the acquired land was not Barani but was Chahi land. This fact stands admitted by the appellant/defendant in paragraph 1 of their written statement. Patwari Halqa while submitting one year's average had stated that price of Chahi kind of land was Rs.40,000 per Kanal. One year's average based on single mutation of Mauza Dhab shows that per Kanal price of land situated at Mauza Dhab comes to Rs.12,381. This one year's average is based only on one transaction. Another one year's average of Mauza Mitha Khel brought on record as Exh.P.W.3/3 which showed Rs.63,636.40 per Kanal. The learned trial Court did not find any sale transaction in the Mauza where from the land was acquired, therefore, he had to rely upon the prices of the adjacent Mauzajat. He worked average price by adding both one year average price which comes to Rs.38,000 and fixed the same price which was not only based on the evidence available on record, but was also very near to the price of Chahi land given by Patwari Halqa i.e. Rs.40,000 per Kanal.
11. While dealing with the question of fixation of compensation in Nisar Ahmad Khan and others v.
Land Acquisition Collector, Swabi and others PLD 2002 SC 25, Province of Punjab through Collector Attock v. Engr. Jamil Ahmad Malik and others 2000 SCM R 870 and Murad Khan through. His widow and 13 others v. Land Acquisition Collector, Peshawar and another 1999 SCM R 1647, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down detailed criteria. Para. (iv) containing one of the principles is quoted below for convenience:-- "The best method of determination of the market price of the plots of landowner the acquisition is relied on instances of sale of it near about the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The next best method is to take into consideration the instances of sale of the adjacent lands made shortly before and after the notification. When the market value is to be determined on the basis of the instances of sale of' land in the neighbouring locality, the potential value of the land need not be separately awarded because such sale cover the potential value. "
12. Keeping in view the above dicta laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it can be safely said that the learned Referee Judge has rightly taken into consideration the one year average of adjacent Mauzajat and by taking the average of the price of both Muzajat a sum of Rs.38,000 was properly granted to the respondents/objectors as compensation of their land acquired. I, therefore, do not see any illegality or misreading/non-reading of evidence warranting interference.
Resultantly, the appeal in hand is dismissed with no orders as to costs.