USMAN ALI SHAH, J---In this objection petition, the petitioners have challenged the amount of compensation awarded to them in respect of their acquired land and fruit bearing trees under the Land Acquisition Act by the learned Addl. District Judge. Haripur, vide his judgment dated 18-12-72.
It may be mentioned that the Government had also filed appeal against this judgment but it was later withdrawn.
The relevant facts for the disposal of this objection petition are that per Notification No. 16371-Rev.
Dated 3-5-67 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government acquired the entire estate of village Dheri for the purpose of Tarbela Dam Project. The acquired estate included the land and fruit bearing trees of petitioner. The petitioners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation for their acquired land and fruit bearing trees awarded to them by the Collector, per Award No. 31 dated 21-12-71 and consequently preferred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act objection petition which the learned Collector forwarded to Addl. District Judge, Haripur. By his judgment dated 18-12-74, the learned Add]. District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation with respect to the various kinds of land of petitioners as under :-
1. Bagh, Chahi and CharriRe. 2,700per kanal.
2. Bahir Di A.I, Branger A.I, Grera AbiRe. 1,350per kanal.
3. Charri BelaRe. 675per kanal.
4. MairaRe. 675per kanal.
5. Rakkar KalsiRe. 337.50 per kanal.
6. Banna BanjarRe. 168.50 per kanal.
7. Other GhairmumkinRe. 84.25 per kanal.
8. Abadi DebRe. 2,700 per kanal.
1. Mango-Rs. 300 per tree.
2. Plum-Rs. 240.50 per tree.
3. Malta and Mitta-Re. 200 per tree.
4. Guava-Re. 200 per tree.
5. Loquate-Rs. 76 per tree.
6. Grapes-Rs. 140.50 per tree.
7. Appricot-Rs. 300 par tree
8. Pomegranate-Re. 300 per tree.
9. Peach-Re. 162.50 per tree.
10. Lemon-Rs. 300 per tree.
11. Persimon-Rs. 161 per tree.
12. Fig-Re. 200 per tree.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Addl. District Judge has undervalued the compensation of their various kinds of land, and although the one year average (Exh. O W 1/2) which was the credible document and which was followed by this Court in a case of this nature was before him yet the learned Addl. District Judge allowed himself to draw conjecturous conclusion in assessing the amount of compensation. As regards the amount of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees, it too, according to the petitioners, was undervalued, for in this respect too instead of placing his reliance on credible documentary evidence in the form of Exh. O W 3/1 which was followed in another case by this Court, he made his own assessment for reasons entirely imaginary.
Rakkar....Re. 399.20 per kanal.
Kund, Maira....Re. 978.40 per kanal.
Charri, Baila---Re. 1,596.80 per kanal.
Bahir Di A.I GrangerRe. ---Rs.1,996.00per kanal.
A.I and Craira A.I Chahi, Cheri A.I, Bagh---Rs. 3,193.60per kanal.
Banjar Jadid Banjar Qadim Daka Rakh & Daka Chiragah, Bana ... Re. 199.60 per kanal.
Ghairmumkin Digar... Re. 99.80 per kanal.
As regards the fruit bearing trees the learned counsel referred to R. F. A. No. 0 of 1976 in which their Lordships of a Division Bench is a case of this nature fixed the amount of compensation for fruit bearing trees at the rate of Re. 302 per tree, vide judgment dated 24th January, 1978. In this respect, this is what their Lordships observed :- "We, therefore, hold that the rate contained in the Schedule Exh. O W 1/1 prepared by Anwar A.I E. A.
D. A. Must be adopted and the price of the aforementioned trees shall be calculated at the rate or Re. 302 per tree."
It may be mentioned that the Award No. 31 dated 2-12-1961 which is the subject-matter in the present case was also the subject-matter in R. F. A. No. 119 of 1974. It will, therefore, be inequitous to allow enhanced compensation in one case and low compensation in another, especially when notice is taken of the fact that the lands acquired in both the cases were of A the same quality.
Consequently, we are constrained to allow compensation to the petitioners for their acquired land as has been allowed in R. F. A. No. 119 of 1974, on the basis of Exh. O W 1/2.
Mr. Abdul Rashid the learned counsel for the Collector and WAPDA, however, contended that since the petitioners have fixed the valuation for court-fee and jurisdiction as Rs. 60,000, therefore, they would be entitled up to that amount and beyond that amount this Court has no power, as otherwise it would tantamount to entertaining a newly preferred claim for which there would be no justification. The learned counsel was, however, unable to cite any authority in support of his contention. On the other hand, Mr. Fida Muhammad Khan, the learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon section 25(3) of the Land Acquisition C Act to show that this Court has the power to award compentation over and above what has been claimed by the petitioners. Section 25(3), ibid, ma be reproduced :- "25.-(3) When the applicant has committed for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector."
Even a bare reading of this provision will make it abundantly clear that this Court can award the amount of compensation over and above what has been claimed by the petitioners in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, provided sufficient material exists to justify the same.
In support of this conclusion, reference may also be made to AIR 1943 Mad. 337. Not only this but it is well settled that if the appellate Court finds that a suit has been undervalued which has prejudiced or affected the disposal of the case, then it would be the duty of the Appellate Court to act as g the Court of first instance and dispose of the appeal on the basis of the, available material on record. In the circumstances of the case, this case appears to us to be just and genuine in which .The petitioners be allowed compensa--petition over and above that claimed by them originally. Consequently, we direct that they would make up the deficiency in court-fee and thereafter they would be entitled to compensation awarded to them in the preceding paragraphsof this judgment for their acquired land and fruit bearing trees.
This objection application is consequently allowed in terms indicated above. But under the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.