P L D 1987 Peshawar 77 (PLP)

11. In case bearing R. F. A. No. 25 of 1986, the Acquisition Judge by his impugned judgment dated 29‑9‑1985, passed the following decree in favour of the objector :‑ "The blood nerve of above discussion is that the objection petition succeeds and petitioner is hereby granted a decree to the effect that he is entitled to recover compensation of 4 Kanals‑and 18 Marlas of land @ Rs. One lac per Kanal. Rs. 4,52,710 as cost of construc tion of bungalow etc. and Rs. 6,88,250 as price of the trees. The petitioner is .also held entitled to compulsory acquisition charges @ Rs. 15 % and compound interest @ 8 % upto 22‑5‑1983 and simple interest @ Rs. 6 %, w. e. f. 23‑5‑1983 (per annum) till the final payment to the petitioner. With no order as to costs."

12. In case bearing R. F. A. No. 116 of 1986, the Acquisition Judge by his impugned judgment dated 6‑3‑1986 passed the following decree in favour of the objector :‑ "As a sequal of my above discussion the objection petition of the objectors succeeds and the objectors are entitled to a decree of enhanced compensation of their suit land to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 per Kanal, in addition the objectors would also he entitled to 15 compulsory acquisition charges from the date of its possession and 8 % compound interest till .22‑5‑1983 and 6 % simple interest till 23‑5‑1983 per annum till the final payment, to the objectors, with no orders as to costs." .

13. In case bearing R. F. A. No. 117 of 1986, the Acquisition Judge, by his impugned judgment dated 3‑3‑1986, passed the following decree in favour of the objector :‑ "The nutshell result of the above discussion is that the petition succeeds and petitioner is granted the decree to the extent that she is entitled to receive the enhanced amount for her landed property at the rate of Rs. One lac per Kanal and besides this she is also entitled to receive compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15 % and compound interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of possession till 22‑5‑1983 and simple interest at the rate of 6% from 23‑5‑1983 till' the final payment to the petitioner. In the circum stances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs."

14. In case bearing R. F. A. No. 124 of 1986, the Acquisition Judge by his impugned judgment dated 22‑12‑1985, passed the following decree in favour of the objector :‑ "The nutshell result of the above discussion is that the petition succeeds and the petitioners are granted decree and it is made rule of the Court that they are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation for their landed property at the rate of Rs. one lac per Kanal. Besides this they are also entitled to receive the compulsory acquisi tion charges at the rate of 15 % and compound interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of possession till 22‑5‑1983 and simple interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from 23‑5‑1983 till the final payment to the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs."

15. Now when the turn of these appeals came up for disposal before this Court, on a reference by the Senior Judge of this Court at Abbottabad Circuit, a Full Bench was constituted to examine the question whether in these cases the material date for the purpose of compensation would be the date of notification or the date of corrigendum. The Full Bench heard the learned counsel for the parties on this question at great length and in the result come to the conclusion that the material date for the purpose of compensation in these cases would be the date of notification, vide judgment dated 19‑10‑1986, in R. F. A. No. 29 of 1986.

16. Before we enter upon a discussion of these cases for disposal on merit, we would like to take note of the gross illegality committed by the Acquisition Judge in the matter of appointment of Advocates as Commis sioners to visit the spot and submit reports about the prices of the acquired property. We have been disturbed to notice a very shocking feature in these cases which cannot be viewed with equanimity. A very nova] precedent has been set by the Acquisition Judge in these cases of which no precedent can be found out or supported in judicial proceedings before the Court. The fact cannot be denied that he was conscious of the tact that same question of facts and law was involved in these cases and the relief sought by the land owners/ objectors before him was, also same because their land was acquired on or about the same date in the same vicinity for same purpose, namely, extension of the area of Military Academy Kakul. Before the Acquisition Collector the cases were divided into groups. The Acquisition Collector had given one common award in each group of the cases. Very curiously, the Acquisition Judge , appointed Commissioners those Advocates who were appearing in these cases before him on behalf of the land owners/objectors. The line adopted by him in this behalf was that an Advocate who was appearing in one group of cases was appointed Commis sioner in the other group of cases.

17. Messrs Saleh Mabmood, Abdur Rsauf Khan Jadoon, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Qazi Abdul Jalil and Qazi Ghulam Rauf Advocates were appearing in these cases before the Acquisition Judge on behalf of the land owners/objectors.

18. Saleh Mahmood, Advocate was appearing as counsel in cases covered by R. F. As. Nos. 79, 95 and 117 of 1986. He was appointed Commissioner in cases covered by R. F. As. Nos. 22 and 49 of 1586 in which Abdur Rauf Khan Jadoon, Advocate was appearing at counsel on behalf of the landowners/objectors.

19. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Advocate was appearing as counsel in case covered by R. F. A. No. 80 of 1986. He was appointed Commis sioner in case covered by R. F: A. No. 141 of 1986 in which Abdur Rauf Khan Jadoon, Advocate was appearing as counsel on behalf of the land owners/objectors.

20. Qazi Abdul Jalil, Advocate was appearing as counsel in case covered by R. F. A. No. 106 of 1986. He was appointed Commissioner in cases covered by R. F. As. Nos. 67, 79 and 91 of 1986 in which Abdur Rauf Khan Jadoon was appearing as counsel on behalf of the land owners/ objectors. This Advocate was also appointed Commissioner in case covered by R. F. A. No. 95 of 1986 in which Saleh Mahmood, Advocate was appearing as counsel on behalf of the land owners/objectors and in case covered by R. F. A. No. 80 of 1986 in which Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Advocate was appearing as counsel on behalf of the land owners/ objectors.

21. Abdur Rauf Khan Jadoon, Advocate was appearing as counsel in cases covered by R. F. As. Nos. 67, 91 and 141 of 1986. He was appointed Commissioner in case covered by R. F. A. No. 106 of 1986 in which Qazi Abdul Jalil, Advocate was appearing as counsel on behalf of the land owners/objectors. He was also appointed Commissioner in case covered by R. F. A. No. 78 of 1986 in which Qazi Ghulam Rauf, Advocate was appearing as counsel on behalf of the land owners /objectors.

22. Qazi Ghulam Rauf, Advocate was appearing as counsel in case covered by R. F. A. No. 78 of 1986. He was appointed Commissioner in case covered by R. F: A. No. 117 of 1986 in which Abdur Rauf Khan Jadoon, Advocate was appearing as counsel on behalf of the land owners/ objectors.

23. Now there can be no question that the reports submitted by the above‑named Advocates as Commissioners will have any evidentiary value in law. We have already observed that the interest of the land owners/objectors in these cases was common and as these Advocates were defending their interest before the Acquisition Judge, they could not be supposed to submit reports before the Acquisition Judge against the interest of their‑ clients or for that matter to submit reports against what they were agitating on behalf of their clients. It is clear that while appointing Advocates in these' cases appearing on behalf of the land owners' objectors as Commissioners, the Acquisition Judge has acted against his judicial ‑conscience and did not allow himself to realise the illegality of his doing so.

24. Now we turn to the disposal of these appeals with reference to the date of notification in each case as, the material date for the purpose of compensation. It may be observed that as a matter of principle of law, in acquisition cases, normally compensation to be paid to the land owners for their acquired land is determined on the basis of one year's average of the lands sold in the vicinity prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act.

25. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the evidence on record of these cases is sufficient for just decision. We first ,proceed to determine as to what would be fair price of the plain land acquired in this case. It consists of Bari and ,'Maira kind of land. The learned counsel for the appellants criticized the impugned judgments of the Acquisition Judge. He argued that the Acquisition Judge has not followed any rational formula while enhancing the price of the acquired .land at the rate of. Rs. one lac per Kanal in cases covered by R. F‑A. Nos. 25 and 27 of.1985, 6, 25, 11.6, 117 and 124 of 1986 and Rs. 1,20,000 in case covered by R. F. A. No. 9 of 1986. His submission is that there is not a single instance to show that land in the vicinity of the acquired land was sold at such a higher rate before the publication of notification in the present case.

26. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the acquired land was costly because it was fit for building purposes and as it was situate in the vicinity of Pakistan Military Academy Kakul which was surrounded by Bungalows, the learned Acquisition Judge was justified in determining Rs. One lac/Las and twenty thousand per Kanal.

27. By going through the evidence on record. we find that the Acquisi tion Judge was in error to enhance the price of the acquired land. We have already observed that the Acquisition Judge has fixed the compensation of the acquired land at the enhanced rate mechanically in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Central Government of p Pakistan v. Sardar Fakhr‑i‑hlam Khan and another. He did not take. pains to sift the evidence on record in order to reach a fair conclusion. It is not the case of the objectors that the sale transactions for the purpose of building houses etc. were a matter of common feature in the area of the acquired land and there was no dearth of willing customers to purchase lands for building purposes at the highest prices. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, referred to a few sale transactions to show that the, lands in the locality of the acquired land were sold at some excessive rates and thus according to them, the Acquisition Judge was justified to grant enhanced compensation to their clients for the lands acquired from them. We have not been able to appreciate this contention. It cannot be disputed that by the above sale transactions very small pieces of lands were purchased. In our view, an individual case should not override in the like cases the law that compensation with respect to the acquired land would be determined with reference to one year's average before the publication of the notifica tion under section 4 of the Act. In the present case,. a vast area of land. in breadth and length consisting of different soils was acquired on or about the same date through the notifications. under section 4 of the Act‑ and the Acquisition Collector announced different awards in each case. Now if in a bulky vast land a small piece of land is sold for some high consideration it should not set a yardstick of price with respect to the entire land of various kinds. Should this be allowed a law, the settled law that compensa tion in the like cases will be fixed on the basis of one year's average prior to the publication of notification tinder section 4 of the Act will be unsettled. The learned counsel for the respondents were unable to cite any law in support of their‑contention that an individual case in the like cases can be followed in the matter of compensation to be paid to the land owners with respect to the land acquired from them under the Land Acquisition Act. In this view of the matter, there would be no option for the Court but to rely for the purpose of compensation to be paid to the land owners for their acquired land in the present case, upon one year's average of the land sold in the vicinity prior to the publication of notification under section 4 of the Act, via. 4‑6‑1981. Now the Revenue staff produced two one year average with respect to the land sold in the vicinity of the acquired land and the surrounding area within one year before the date of notification. The learned counsel for the respondents did not point out any manipulation on behalf of the Revenue Staff in these averages. Now in the present case, the land was acquired in village. Nawanshehr. The one year average relating to this village was comparatively less. The Acquisition Collector preferred the average pertaining to the land sold in the Cantonment area within one year prior to the date of notification. .We consider that the Acquisition Collector was very fair to the land owners to grant them compensation at the higher rate with reference to one year's average of Cantonment area. It cannot be denied that he could grant compensation with reference to the one year's average of village Nawanshehr in which area the land was acquired. There can, therefore, be no question, against him that while passing the award, he acted arbitrarly in disregard of the evidence on record.

28. The whole burden of the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, however, was that in any case the acquired land was situate in the neighbourhood of commercial area or a locality in which life facilities were available and thus, according to them, the Acquisition Judge was justified to award compensation at the rate of Rs. one lac or above per Kanal. We have already answered this question. Sale transactions for the purpose of building houses etc. were not a matter of common feature in the area of the acquired land. Not only this but the learned counsel for the respondents were unable to show with reference to the evidence on record that plots in the area of the acquired land were to be sold for abnormally high consideration anywhere in the area of the acquired land. As a matter of fact there is not an iota of evidence on record to show that plots for the purpose of construction used to be sold anywhere in the vicinity of the acquired land at or about Rs. one lac per Kanal prior to the publication of the notification. We, therefore, do not see as to how any challenge can possibly be made to the award of the Acquisition Collector, the moreso as he granted higher consideration with reference to the lands sold in the Cantonment area as against the less price of the lands sold in the vicinity of the present case prior to the publication of the notification.

29. As regards the build up area, the appellant has challenged before us compensation with respect to Bungalow No. 251 which is the subject matter of R. F. A. bearing No. 25 of 1986 and the spur which is the subject matter of' R. F. A. bearing No. 6 of 1986. The Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs., 3,43,000 at the rate of Rs. 120 per sq. ft. for Bungalow No.

251. The Acquisition Judge enhanced its compensation to Rs. 4,52

710. The objector is also not satisfied with this compensation decreed by the Acquisition Judge and has preferred cross‑objection bearing No. 4 of 1986 for enhancement of the compensation. In the case of spur the Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 75,936.

30. Now while determining compensation of Bungalow No. 251 the Acquisition Judge referred to the statement of Commissioner appointed by him to evaluate the price of the Bungalow. The Commissioner in his report has stated this much that fine materials/articles have been used in the construction of the Bungalow and that he has based his report on the state ment of the Head Draftsman, of Ayub Medical College. The Acquisition Judge relied upon this statement and accepted as a gospel truth the claim of the objector for enhancement of the compensation. In support of his impugned finding, the, Acquisition Judge observed as under :‑ "The Land Acquisition Collector has fixed the price of construction of Bungalow No. 251 at Rs. 3,94,000 only. The Commissioner was also directed to ascertain the price of construction of bungalow as well. He had taken alongwith him one Masud Khan Head Draftsman Ayub Medical College for ascertaining the price of construction. He has assessed the price of bungalow having covered area of 2690 C. F. T. @ ., Rs. 165 c.ft. which comes to Rs. 4,43,

850. The cost of servant quarter having a covered area of 375 c.ft. has .been assessed a Rs. 20 c.ft. and comes to. Rs. 7,

500. The cost of draft wall as been assessed at Rs. 1,

360. Total cost of the construc tion has thus been assessed by the Commissioner at Rs. Four lacs fifty‑two thousand 7 hundred and ten (Rs. 4, 52,710). Commis sioner was also examined in the Court. Nothing has been brought out on the record as to why his report should not be accepted, which seems to be quite fair and reasonable. accordingly fix the price of bungalow at Rs. 4,52,

710. In' addition to interest and compulsory acquisition charges."

31. By going through the evidence on record, it is clear that the Acquisition Judge has treated this aspect of the case in a very perfunctory and slipshod manner. We have to observe that the draftsman is not an architect or mason so that he can be expected to guess or assess the costs of materials/articles used in the construction of a building. His business is to draw a sketch of a proposed building on a site. He is not concerned with what materials/articles should be used in the construction of the building and what would be their approximate price. In this behalf the opinion of an architect or mason can be considered an expert opinion and the opinion of a draftsman will have no legal value. 31‑A. Now as assessment with respect to the price of the Bungalow in the present case required expert opinion, the Acquisition Judge should have appointed an expert person in this behalf with the consent of the parties. It was also the duty of the Commissioner to seek permission of the Court to direct appointment of an expert in assisting him with respect to the assess ment of the price of the Bungalow. No attention was given in this connection which in our view, was a prerequisite in the interest of justice. Even otherwise, the draftsman on whose report the Commissioner based reliance in his report was not produced as witness by the objector so that he should have been asked about his knowledge and experience in assessing the prices of the materials/articles used in the building of the present case. As obviously he had no knowledge and experience in this behalf, he was withheld from appearing as witness before the Court. The Court also did not criticise the conduct of the objector to avoid appearance of the draftsman as witness on his behalf. In the circumstances, all that can be said is that the report of the Commissioner and the claim of the objector for enhance ment of compensation with respect to the price of, the Bung a low were accepted by the Acquisition Judge unilaterally without allowing himself to act upon the principles of prudence in order to reach a fair conclusion.

32. Quite apart from the above position, the Acquisition Collector has based his award with respect to the price of the Bungalow on the assessment furnished to him by the C & W Buildings Division, Abbottabad. There can be no question that the opinion of the Buildings Division with respect to the price of the Bungalow in the present case was an expert opinion. In the interest of justice, it was, therefore, necessary for the Court to have examined the concerned officials of the Buildings Division as witnesses so that it should have been ascertained whether their assessment was or was not proper. This was also not done and thus enhancement of the compensation with respect to the Bungalow can be said to be arbitrary and not sustainable in law.

33. While enhancing compensation of the spur from Rs. 75,936.20 to Rs. 2,00,000, the Acquisition Judge observed this much :‑ "The petitioners have constructed spur to avoid damage to their land as admitted by the Collector in his award. 1 am of the view according to its measurement on the spot that the spur cannot be constructed less than Rs 2,00,

000. I, therefore, enhance the price of spur from Rs. 75,936 to Rs. 2,00,000, and petitioners are entitled to recover the same."

34. A look at these observation will show that the Acquisition Judge was very graceful in favour of the objectors. The Commissioner appointed by him has not said a word about the spur in his report. Correct that the Collector has admitted the existence of spur in his award but he has awarded compensation for it to the objectors. The duty of the Acquisition Judge was to consider whether the compensation awarded in respect of the spur was or was not fair. There is no sense in his observation that the Collector has admitted the existence of spur in his award and in his (Acquisition Judge's) view "according to its measurement on the spot, the spur cannot be constructed less than Rs. two lacs". He should have thoroughly examined this aspect of the case with reference to the evidence on record. He did not do any such thing, therefore, as his impugned finding to enhance compensation of the spur suffers from material irregularity, it will have no legal sanctity. Now as the Acquisition Collector has granted compensation of Rs. 75,936.20 to the objector on the assessment furnished to him by the Buildings Division and as the objector failed to bring on record cogent material evidence to rebut the assessment of the Buildings Division, we do not see as to how interference can, possibly be made in the compensation awarded by the Acquisition Collector with respect to the spur.

35. We now come to examine the question with regard to the compensation of trees on the acquired land. It may be stated that before us this question is involved in appeals bearing R. F. As. Nos. 6 and 9 of 1986. We have already pointed out that these appeals have arisen from Award No.

4. It will be convenient to take up these appeals separately with respect to the compensation of trees. R. F. A. No. 6 of 1986

36. At pages Nos. 153 and 154 of the file‑of the Acquisition Collector are the lists of fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land concerning this appeal. According to the list at page No. 153, there were 78 fruit bearing trees and their price has been Shown Ks, 75,03$.75. This list is at page No. 82 of the file of the Acquisition Judge and appears to have not been exhibited. While according to the list at page No. 154 there were 123 fruit bearing trees and their price has been shown Rs. 2,13,

103. This list is Exh. P. W. 2/3 at page No. 79 of the. file of the Acquisition Judge. 37. " As regards fruitless trees involved in this appeal, the list in this behalf is at pages Nos. 129 and 130 of the file of the Acquisition Collector. According to these lists, there were 1,042 fruitless trees and. their price has been shown Rs. 25,

484. This list is Exh. P. W. 2/14 at pages Nos. 80 and 81 of the fire of the Acquisition Judge.

38. In proceedings before the Acquisition Judge by way of objection petition, the Commissioner made a report that he found 563 major fruit bearing trees and 1,042 major fruitless trees standing on the acquired land in this appeal. The number of fruit bearing trees was thus shown 563 instead of 78 as found by the Collector and as regards the number of fruitless trees the Commissioner tallied it with the number found by the Collector viz. 1,042 fruitless trees. The report of the Commissioner is Exh. C. W: 1/1.. The Acquisition Judge accepted this report.

39. As regards compensation for 563 fruit bearing trees Syed Nazakat Hussain Shah, Extra Assistant Director Agricultural Department appeared as P. W. 3 on behalf of the objector. He produced Goshwara of different kinds of fruit bearing trees pertaining to the Medical College, Abbottabad. This Goshwara is Exh. P. W. 3/1. In this Goshwara, the prices. of every kind of fruit bearing tree is given according to its age. The Acquisition Judge also accepted this Goshwara and decreed the claim of the .objector for enhancement of compensation in respect of fruit bearing trees as under :‑ "Fruit bearing trees As per Goshwara 563 Nos. Exh. P. W. 3/1

40. As regards fruitless trees, the Acquisition Judge too accepted the claim of the objector for the enhancement of compensation and granted the following decree :‑ "Non fruit bearing Rs. 2 lacs in all" trees 1,042.

41. Now as the Commissioner reported that he found 563 fruit bearing trees in the land of the respondent, it w‑as the duty of the Court to require him that he should produce cogent evidence in support of hi report, it cannot be disputed that the Commissioner did not bother about to count the trees on the spot in the presence of independent witness o integrity. Correct that in cross‑examination, he stated that the Patwari and the Collector were served by him but they did not participate him while he was visiting the spot. However, he cannot be said to have carried out the proceedings fairly. He was bound to compel attendance of the Patwari an the Collector while he was inspecting the spot. This was neither impossible nor illegal. When according to him, the Patwari and the Collector refused to attend at the time of inspecting the spot, he should have compelled the attendance through Court and should not have left the matter to his ownself. After all, he was to appear as witness in support of his report fit therefore, he should have realised that there must be evidence of reliable` character by way of oral and documentary evidence in justification of his report. We regret to notice his following reply in cross‑examination :‑ "I have not recorded any statement of either party in support of my report Exhs. C. W, 1/1 and 1/2. As it was not in the order of the Court, therefore, I did not record the statement of anybody. It is correct that I have not attached any statement of any person to show that I have inspected the spot and counted the trees because I was not supposed to do so."

42. A reply to this effect cannot be expected even from a layman who is asked to carry out the job of a middle man. In proceedings before the Court the job of a Commissioner is to act as an impartial man to make a fair report to the Court. He is appointed by the Court as Commissioner in order to assist the Court in reaching just d6ci3ion of the dispute between the parties. It should, therefore, be the duty of the Commissioner to make such report so that his impartiality is not questioned. As in the present case, the Commissioner was a lawyer, we do not .understand as to how he allowed ‑himself to make a report in the matter without participating alongwith him men of a character and integrity while he was visiting the spot. His report, about the number of trees is, therefore, open to serious objection and is not fit to be relied upon in the circumstances of the case.

43. The Goshwara Exh P. W. 3/1 of the prices of fruit bearing trees produced by the Extra Assistant Director Agricultural Department P. W. 3 is also not free from structures.' This Goshwara relates to the fruit bearing trees of the area of Medical College, Abbottabad. He had not visited the spot of the present case to see trees there. We, therefore, do not understand as to how he acceded to the demand of the landowner to appear on his behalf before the Court in support of his case. Be that as it may, he has said not a single word in his statement that the prices of different kinds of fruit bearing trees given in the list at pages Nos. 153 and 154 on the file of the Acquisition Collector were wrong. The prices given in these lists with respect to the fruit bearing trees were also given by his own Department and as these lists were official documents, he should have on the basis of his knowledge and experience about the prices of the trees, challenged the correctness of the prices of the fruit bearing trees given therein. He‑did not do any such thing and thus his mere appearance to support the claim of the land owners would not avail to the land owners, the moreso as he has not inspected the trees standing on the acquired land and the Goshwara produced by him relates to the trees of other area. It is thus clear that there were 78 fruit bearing trees found by the Acquisition Collector on the acquired land for which he granted compensation of Rs. 75,038.75 according to the schedule of prices given by the Agricultural Department and as in this behalf there is no tangible evidence on behalf of the objector to rebut the finding if the Acquisition Collector, the Acquisition Judge was wrong to interfere with the same.

44. The report of the Commissioner that he found 563, major fruit bearing trees standing in the land of the respondent is also against the plantation formula with respect to the fruit bearing trees. There should at least be a distance of 25/30 feet between the two fruit bearing trees in an orchard. Thus, one fruit bearing trees would occupy one Marla in an orchard of the present case. It may be pointed out that one Marla is about 272 sq. ft. and for that matter each boundary line would be about 16 feet. Now in this appeal bearing No.‑6 of 1986 land measuring 8 Kanals and 6 Marlas is involved. In terms of Marlas, 8 Kanals and 6 Marlas are 166 Marlas. Thus, if at all, these there were more than 78 fruit bearing trees as found by the Collector same would have been 166 fruit bearing trees but as there were 1042 fruitless trees in the same land, it is also obvious that the Collector had fairly conducted the proceedings and found 78 fruit bearing trees in the land of the respondent. This also shows that the Acquisition Judge had his face to the respondent to hear him with grace in disregard of any principle or norm on the subject of plantation of trees in a land.

45. As regards fruitless trees, the Commissioner found 1,042 such trees standing on the acquired land of the respondent. This number is not disputed. The respondent, however, laid a claim of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation. The Acquisition Judge has given No justification while decreeing the sum of Rs. 2 la.,s as compensation for these 1,042 fruitless trees. He merely observed that "as regards 1,042 non‑fruit bearing trees, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to recover Rs. 2 lacs for all these non‑fruit bearing trees which is very proper in accordance with the present rates of firewood/timber". He did not refer to any positive evidence of reliable character in support of this conclusion. Thus, his finding is based on conjectures and surmises. In other words, he has not considered this aspect of the case objectively but has, we may say so, given subject a consideration to the same. It may be observed that every judicial order in a given case before the Court must be supported by cogent evidence and in the absence of any evidence whatever tile order so passed by the Court will have no legal standing and can be struck down straightaway.

46. This brings us to examine the question whether the Acquisition Collector was right in awarding. compensation of Rs. 25,484 for 1,042 fruitless trees. There can be no question against him that he had acted in this behalf arbitrarily. He awarded this compensation according to the schedule of prices given by the Agricultural Department. Nothing is shown against the concerned officials of the Agricultural Department that they were prejudiced against the respondent. Thus, there can be no question against their fairness in assessing the prices with respect to 1,042 fruitless trees. Even otherwise, no positive evidence on record of reliable character was produced on behalf of the respondent that the officials of the Agricultural Department had committed mistake in assessing the prices of trees. We have, therefore, no option but to uphold the award of compensation of Rs. 25,484 given by the Collector to the respondent with respect to 1,042 fruitless trees.

47. The Acquisition Collector had inspected the spot and as he did not find any tree on the acquired land of the objector, he did not grant any compensation to them. Before the Acquisition Judge, however, the objector laid a claim that there were 50 apple trees standing on their acquired land and they may be granted compensation in respect of these trees except the mere clam of the objector there was nothing before the Acquisition Judge to show ‑that as a matter of fact there were apple trees on the acquired land of the objector and the Acquisition Collector suppressed the same when he visited the spot. Yet the Acquisition Judge believed the claim of the objector with respect to the apple trees and while granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,802.50 per ‑ tree, he referred to the schedule of prices with respect to various kinds of trees pertaining to the area of Medical College, Abbottabad. This schedule is Exh. P. W. 8/8 and was prepared by an Extra Assistant Director of Agricultural Depart ment who was not examined. This exhibit was produced by Abdul Jalil Patwari Acquisition (P. W. 8). The statement of this witness is clear to the effect that he had accompanied the Acquisition Collector while he was visiting the spot. He did not state that the Acquisition Collector .omitted to mention 50 apple trees standing on the land of the objectors. No question was put to him even in cross‑examination as to whether there were apple trees standing on the acquired land when he visited the spot. We, therefore, do not understand as ‑to how the integrity of the Acquisition Collector can be questioned that he suppressed the apple trees standing on the acquired land. If at all the Acquisition Judge was, to take into consideration the claim of the objectors with respect to the apple trees. he should have appointed a commission with the consent of the parties to visit the spot and report about the trees there. He did not do any such thing and it is unfortunate that he doubted the inspection proceedings carried out by the Acquisition Collector and put a stamp of approval to the claim of the objectors. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the claim of the objectors with respect to the apple trees was false and we regret to say that the Acquisition Judge decreed the same without realizing that he was to act as Court and unless there was cogent evidence in support of a claim, it should not be given any legal value. His impugned decree with respect to compensation of apple trees is, therefore, set aside with impunity.

48. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are left in no manner .of doubt that the Acquisition Judge has dealt with the cases in these appeals in disregard of the material evidence on record, therefore, his impugned judgments cannot be sustained in law. As regards the award given by the Collector in these cases, we find that it is based, on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record and nothing was shown to us that the same suffers from any legal flaw or infirmity.

49. On our part, however, we have given our earnest consideration to what should be the fair compensation to be paid to the landowners for the land acquired from them. The fact is not denied that a vast and large area of land in these cases in which separate awards were given by the Collector was acquired. We have already observed that nothing was shown to us from the evidence on record that the acquired land was always everywhere ready for building purposes. If this were so, interested customers would have been purchasing' land for building purposes every now and then anywhere in the acquired land. Thus, merely because the land was acquired for public purposes, it should not be the ground to urge that it always bore potential value and was very highly costly. .

50. Now in the present case, the acquired land consists of two kinds viz., Bari and Maira. The Acquisition Collector granted compensation to the land owners according to the kind of each land on the basis of one year's average. In so far as Bari kind of lied is concerned, it measures 3 Kanals and the Acquisition Collector allowed compensation with respect to this kind of land at the rate of Rs. 48.081.60 per Kanal. We feel that the compensation granted by the Acquisition Collector to the land owners for the Bar‑, kind of land was fair, the moresa as he allowed this compensation with reference to the one year's average, of Cantt. area which was higher than the one year's average relating to village Nawanshehr, in which the land was acquired in the present case.

51. As regards Maira kind of land, it measures 30 Kanals 10 Marlas and although the Acquisition Collector granted compensation with respect to Maira kind of land at the rate of‑ Rs. 24,422.40 .per Kanal, we have come across an authority of our Supreme Court in the case of N, W F. P. through Collector, Abbottabad Land Acquisition and others v. Haji Ali Asghar Khan and others (1985SCMR767). It may be pointed out that the land acquired iii that case is also situate in the same area of Abbottabad. In the cited case, the Acquisition Judge had allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per Kanal for Maira kind of land. In appeal, the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 20,000 per Kanal to Rs. 25,000 per Kanal and in this respect observed as under :‑ "We have heard the learned counsel for all the parties at some length and even adjourned the case on one occasion to enable the parties to obtain further instructions in order to ascertain the situation and exact location of the area acquired vis‑a‑vis the adjoining villages such as Mirpur, Jhangi, Small Industries Estate etc. where sale transactions have also taken place and were being relied upon, before us, by some parties. After considerable discussion before us in connection with the transactions taking place, in these villages and the views expressed with regard to their proximity to village Banda Qazi, we discovered that the areas now included in village Banda Qazi, and the areas which constitute village Mirpur at present all formerly .formed .part of a single village viz., Mirpur village and that it was only recently that some of the areas out of the said village were carved out and designated as a new village called Qazi Banda village. In these circumstances, we feel that the sale transactions in Mirpur estate besides, of course, those in village Banda Qazi and not the sale transactions in any other village or estate even though situate in the neighbourhood, would be of the relevance in determining the market value of the land acquired in this case. It is an admitted position that the average market value of the sales in village Mirpur, during the relevant period works out at Rs. 23,00 per Kanal. We, therefore, think that even on the criteria laid down by the learned Senior Civil Judge and upheld by the High Court for working out the rate at which compensation should be. allowed and also taking into account 'the fact that the notification of the acquisition was issued in 1978 and the award made some tw6 years later and there was an upward trend in the prices of the land during the period, the value of the land for purposes of payment of compensation should, in. our opinion, be fixed at Rs. 25,000 per Kanal. We would, therefore, award compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per Kanal for the land acquired in this case. In this view of the matter, Civil Appeals Nos. 13 and 14 of 1984 must succeed, while Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1984 shall fail. The upshot is that Civil Appeals Nos. 13 and 14 of 1984 are allowed to the extent that the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge as upheld by the High Court shall. stand modified to the extent that the amount of the compensation allowed therein shall be enhanced to Rs. 25,000 per Kanal instead of Rs. 20,000 per Kanal, but the decree and judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, in other respects, shall remain unaltered."

52. Now in the present case, it is not the case on behalf of the respondents that Maira kind of land was more valuable than the Maira kind of land in the cited case. Nothing was also shown on behalf of the respondents that with reference to one year's average the prices of the Maira kind of land after the announcement of the award in the cited case and before the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act in the present case exceeded Rs. 25,000 per Kanal. In this view of the matter we respectfully follow the rate of R5. 25000 per Kanal for Maira kind of land fixed by the Honourable Judges' of the Supreme Court in the cited case.

53. The upshot of this whole discussion is that, we allow these appeals and while setting aside the‑impugned judgments of the Acquisition Judge, we modify the award of the Acquisition Collector to the extent that the amount of compensation would stand enhanced to Rs. '25,000 per Kanal for Maira kind of land and in other respects his award is maintained. The respondents would also be entitled to 15 % compulsory acquisition charges on the amount of compensation to be paid to them. No order as to costs. A. A./515/P. Appeals accepted.