1999 PLP 1517 (YLR)

I propose to dispose of this regular first appeal as well as cross‑objection No.8 of 1995 as both have arisen from the same judgment.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 District Collector, Mardan/Collector, Land Acquisition, Scarp Afardan. initiated acquisition proceedings for acquiring land measuring . 54 Kanals along with the land belonging to Muhammad Said, measuring 11 Kanals and 2 Marlas for the purpose of remodelling of "Murdara" drain. Accordingly notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 11‑3‑1991 in this respect. The Collector, after observing the requisite legal formalities regarding the Land Acquisition as well as the compensation to be paid to the landowners gave his Award (No.214, dated 9-2‑1993) Exh.R.W.l/8.

3. Dissatisfied with the said Award the landowner/objector, Muhammad Said, submitted objection petition under section 18 of the said Act to the Collector. The Collector referred the objection petition to the District Judge, Buner (Camp at Mardan) who entrusted the same to the Senior Civil Judge/Acquisition Judge, Mardan for disposal. Later, the same was transferred again to the District Judge, Buner (Camp at Mardan).

4. The defendants/respondents were summoned. They contested the objection/reference petition, filed their joint written statement, wherein quite a few legal as well as factual objections were raised.

5. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to various issues. Evidence of the parties, pro and contra, which they wished to produce, was recorded.

6. Thereafter, the District Judge, by his judgment recorded on 14‑1‑1994 while accepting. the reference petition filed by the landowner Muhammad Said, fixed the compensation amount of the suit land at the rate of Rs.1,500 per Maria. In addition the landowner/respondent was also held to be entitled to Rs.25 % by way of compulsory acquisition charged alongwith 6% simple interest per annum of the enhanced amount from the date of possession. Hence, this appeal as well as the cross‑objection.

7. Mr. Saadat Hussain, Advocate learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sher Bahadur Khan, Advocate Mardan, learned counsel for the respondent present and heard. Record of the case perused carefully.

8. A perusal of the record would reveal that the District Judge while recording the impugned judgment has taken into consideration the evidence produced by the parties. It was for this reason that the compensation amount which was fixed in this case i.e., Rs.1,500 per Marla with other compulsory and simple charges is much higher than "the Ausat Yaksala", Exh.O.W.1/x (Rs.358.17 per Marla) and Exh.OW‑1/x‑1 (Rs.625 per Marla).

9. No illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the Land Acquisition/District Judge so as to prompt this Court to interfere with the judgment impugned. On the other hand, the decision given by the District Judge is quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case and calls no interference.

10. The regular first appeal as well as the cross‑objection No.8 of 1995 are, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./378/P Appeal dismissed.