1984 PLP 14 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 22nd October, 1983. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑The facts giving rise to the present petition are that by Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, published on 21‑7‑1967, petitioners' land measuring 41 Kanals and 19 Marlas, out of 75 Kanals and 7 Marlas, comprising Khasras Nos. 1041, 1042 and 1043 situate in Village Dheenda, Tehsil Haripur, District Abbottabad was acquired. The petitioners, during the acquisition proceed ings, preferred a claim for the value of the acquired land @ Rs.12,000 per Kanal and that the Government should also acquire the rest of their land alongwith the tube‑well and houses built thereon, The Collector rejected the claim of the petitioners and fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,390 per Kanal for Bagh type while for the `Chahi' type of land, no market price was assessed, though, according to the petitioners, at the time of acquisition, their land consisted of both `Bagh' and `Chahi' types.

2. Aggrieved of the Collector's award the petitioners sought reference to the civil Court and the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the market value of the petitioners' land, as a Court reference to Rs.2,396 per Kanal for Bagh' type and Rs.2,516 per Kanal for `Chahi' type of land. Against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, respondents preferred Regular First Appeal No. 34 of 1976 and the petitioners preferred Cross‑Objection No. 7 of 1976 before the Peshawar High Court, which, by judgment dated i4‑9‑1982, declined to interfere inso far as the rate of compensation for the acquired land was concerned, and also dismissed the petitioners' Cross‑Objection.

3. Learned counsel contended before us that the claim of the petitioners involved inter alia provisions of section 23 (1) thirdly of the Land Acquisition Act ; and that the respondents did not acquire the whole compact block of land belonging to the petitioners as provided for in section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that in the judgment of the learned Additional Judge these matters have been fully attended to under Issues Nos. 2 and 3 and proper appraisal'' of the evidence, produced by the petitioners, was made, and the relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below :‑ "In order to properly appreciate the two issues mentioned above, it was essential that the land which has suffered by the acquisition, must have been included in the relevant issues and there should have been a prayer for the damages suffered, through the adverse affects severance of the acquired portion, It is essential for the objectors to have brought on record, showing the quantum of such damages suffered by them. It is not a case of under valuation that they have proved the total estimates of costs of the tube‑well and the houses under reference which have not been acquired. There is no evidence at all to show the property has been adversely affected in terms of in lonely to furnish data for the Court to ascertain the damages prayed for the suit property. The oral statement of O. W. 5 is also of not much help to the objectors in so much so that he also failed to mention the quantum of damages sustained by them through the adverse effects of the acquisition of the portion of the suit land. Counsel for the objectors was very frank enough to concede that no evidence has been furnished on the actual loss sustained by the objectors because the water of Tarbela Dam has not submerged the suit property as yet . ..." No such point was urged before the learned Judges of the Peshawar High Court and the only point pressed was the valuation of the suit land. Thus we find no‑merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.