1995 PLP 667 (CLC)

(2) Whether the petitioners are estopped to challenge the Award by their conduct? (3) Whether the petition of reference is not competent in the eye of law? (4) Whether market value determined by the respondent No. 4 is incorrect? (5) What was the market value of the suit property at the time of its acquisition? (6) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief prayed for? (7) Relief."

3. The land owners claimed Rs.6,000 per Marla as price of the suit land and Rs.12,00,000 (twelve lacs) as compensation for Pacca construction spread over an area of 2 Kanals 5 Marlas.

4. The learned Additional Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the Collector contended that the Patwari Halqa had worked out the market value of the land adjacent to the suit land in the light of one yearly average Exh. P.W.1/D‑3 as Rs.1,019.78 per Marla, which has been ignored by the Referee Judge; that the Local Commissioner while assessing the value of the landed property and that of built up property at the enhanced rate, did not base his report on any evidence whatsoever.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the land‑owners submitted that the suit land is situated on main Nisatta Mardan Road, adjacent .to the Commercial vicinity, therefore, it will certainly fetch more price than the one awarded to them. He, however, supported the report of the Local Commissioner Exh. C.W. 1/1, according to which the actual market price of the suit lands fixed at the rate of Rs.6,384 per Marla. He added that the learned Referee Judge has wrongly fixed Rs.6,000 per Marla and it may be enhanced to Rs.6,384 per Marla. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their arguments pro and contra.

6. The learned trial Court appointed one Fazalur Rehman, Deputy Director, Mardan Development Authority as Commissioner to ascertain the prevalent market value of the suit land and the superstructure thereon, who submitted his report on 17‑6‑1984 and assessed the compensation as Rs.6,25,918.45 for the superstructure, against which objections were raised by the land‑owners vide application dated 10‑7‑1984 but the same were overruled by the trial Court vide its order dated 20‑1‑1985. Abdul Qayum A.D.K. recorded his statement as P.W.3 and produced Goshwara Intiqalat Exh. P.W.3/1 showing the market price of the suit land as Rs.5,475.91 per Marla. Thereafter Ghulam Sarwar Khan, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner who submitted his report Exh. C.W.1/1 dated 9‑7‑1988 assessing the market value of the suit land to be Rs.6,384 per Marla. In support of his assessment he produced copy of Mutation No. 6812 attested on 29‑1‑1983 showing the price of one Marla as Rs.7,

500. He also produced copies of Mutations Nos. 6859, 6860 and 6861 attested on 28‑2‑1983 pertaining to certain land situated in Mahal Bagh‑e‑Aram, according to these mutations an area of three Marlas of land in each transaction has been sold for Rs.30,000 i.e. Rs.10,000 per Marla. '

7. The Land Acquisition Collector has under‑valued the land and has wrongly assessed. the market value of the suit land at the rate of Rs.1,242 per Marla. The learned Referee Judge has also not reached at a fair conclusion, therefore, we are of the view that in order to secure the ends of justice, these cases shall be remanded to the trial Court, who shall record fresh evidence and assess the compensation in the light thereof in accordance with law. Consequently both the appeals are partially accepted to the extent that the impugned judgment and decree of the Referee Judge are set aside and the cases are remanded back to the said Court, who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs. Cases remanded. AA./1583/P