1980 PLP 284 (SCMR)

3. The plaintiffs then filed a regular second appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the Peshawar High Court on 30th June 1979. The plaintiffs/petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court, praying that the price of the land should be fixed as Rs. 19,719.

4. The only point which was argued before us was that the Courts below were not justified in fixing the price of land at Rs. 31,

350. Learned counsel argued that according to the aunt‑panjsala prepared by the Patwari, the land was worth only Rs. 19,

719. He also submitted that feeling the disparity between the quinquennial average price aforesaid and the one mentioned in the sale deed, the, learned trial Court had appointed a Commissioner who had reported that the land was worth Rs. 25,

080. In these circumstances he submitted that there was no justification for accepting the price mentioned in sale deed; namely Rs. 31,350.

5. We have heard the learned counsel at length. According to sec tion 27 of the N.‑W. F. P. Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950) for the purpose of determining the market value, the Court may consider the following among other matters as evidence of such value‑ (a) the price or value actually received or to be received by the vendor from the vendee or the amount really due on the footing of the mortgage as the case may be ; (b) the amount of interest included in such price, value or amount ; (c) the estimated amount of the average annual net assets of the land or property ; . (d) the land revenue assessed upon the land or property ; (e) the value of the similar land or property in the neighbourhood ; (j) the value of the land or property as shown by previous sales or mortgages. He argued that according to clause (c) of the aforesaid section "the estimated amount of the average annual net assets of the land or property", provided a good guide for the fixing of a price in this particular case but the same was wrongly ignored by the Courts below. The contention has no merit. According to clause (a) the price or value actually received or to be received by the vendor is also an important factor to be kept in view. In this case the entire amount was paid before the sub‑registrar who appeared in the witness‑box and deposed that transfer of money took place in his view and presence. There is no rebuttal of this evidence and nor it was pleaded that any amount was refunded by the vendor to the vendee later on. In the circumstances the Courts below were justified in accepting the sale price which was proved as having been actually paid to the vendor. Even otherwise according to the report of the local commission there is not much difference inasmuch as whereas according to the sale deed the price would be roundabout Rs. 1,011.00 per kanal but according to the report of the commission it may be roundabout Rs. 809.00 per kanal. Here it may be pointed out that the petitioners did not raise any objection to the report of the commission and in that view of the matter to ask the Courts to fix a price even lower than that is in no way justified. The matter in its very nature depended upon the appreciation of evidence and it has not been pointed out that the Courts below violated any principle of law or any provision of the relevant enactment in recording a finding on the subject in hand. The view taken by the Courts below is supported by the actual evidence led in the case arid other facts and circumstances. Similarly there is no misreading or omission of the record. The orders of the Courts below seem to be perfectly in accordance with the law and the facts of the case and call for no interference.

6. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.