2014 PLP 2448 (YLR)

SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUND-ZADA, J.

The instant regular first appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22/11/2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III/ Referee Court, Mardan whereby he enhanced the rate of acquired land measuring 9-Kanals, 16-Marlas from Rs.823 to Rs.5000 per Marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges.

2. For the construction of "Rustam-Bunair Road at Mauza Landay, Mardan", the Land Acquisition Collector, Mardan issued Notifications under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 20-12-1994 and 30-9-2002 respectively whereby land measuring 76 Kanals and 6 Marla situated at Mauza Landay District Mardan was acquired and subsequently announced Award No.07/14 on 21-6-2003 wherein the following rates of compensation were fixed:-- (i) Chahi land .. Rs.833 per Marla. (ii) Barrani land .. Rs.679 Per Marla. (iii) Maira land .. Rs.449 per Marla. (iv) Ghairmumkin Rasta/Kanda . Rs.300 per Marla.

3. The affectee land-owners/ respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein being not satisfied from the above rates of compensation fixed in the Award preferred objection petition under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wherein they claimed an adequate enhancement of compensation of their acquired land. The objection petition was contested by the appellants and due to divergent pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Referee Court:

ISSUES: (1) Has the petitioner a cause of action to file the petition? OPP (2) Whether the suit property is the ownership of the petitioner? OPP. (3) Whether respondents are owners of the acquired property? OPP. (4) What should be the relief?

4. Pro and contra evidence was recorded and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Referee Court while accepting the Objection Petition of the affectee land-owners, enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.5000 Per Marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges vide judgment and decree dated 22-11-2007. 4A. Feeling dissatisfied from the above judgment and decree of the Referee Court, the appellants herein have preferred the instant Regular First Appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their valuable assistance.

6. Perusal of the record reveals that objectors/respondents Nos.1 and 2 and defendants/respondents Nos.3 to 15 are the owners of the suit property acquired by the appellants. Azizur Rehman Patwari Helqa (P.W.1) has stated that the objectors/ respondents Nos.1 and 2 are owners to the extent of 01 Kanals 15 Marlas and 4 Sersai and as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97 Exh.P.W.1/1 the objectors were owners in possession of Khasra No.995 measuring 9 Kanals 16 Marla to the extent of 3 shares while the remaining 9 shares owned by respondents Nos.3 to 15 and as per mathematical calculation the trial Court held the objectors/respondents Nos.1 and 2 to receive compensation for an area of 49 Marla (2 Kanals 9 Marlas) while the respondents Nos.3 to 15 were held entitled to receive compensation for the remaining area. The Referee Court appointed Mr. Sami-ur-Rehman, Advocate, as local commissioner to inspect the spot in presence of the parties and to submit his report which was accordingly submitted determining the rate of compensation per Marla as Rs.5000. The Referee Court in the given circumstances relied upon the report of the local Commission which was not objection by the appellants in the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to satisfy this Court that the enhancement in rate of compensation vide impugned judgment is unfair and requires interference. Though there is the local Commission report which was confirmed by the Referee Court. Moreover not only this report but the entire record on file including Revenue Record and other facts and circumstances available on record, leads me to hold that the rate of compensation Per Marla calculated by the local commissioner as Rs.5000 is adequate and just. The affectee landowners have not preferred any appeal or cross-objection against the impugned judgment of the Referee Court, thus the impugned judgment being well founded and the findings of the trial Court on each issue is well reasoned, hence the same is kept intact and upheld.

8. The net result of the above discussion is that the instant Regular First Appeal is without substance and is thus hereby dismissed with costs. AG/135/P Appeal dismissed.