2005 PLP 1336 (CLC)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

This Regular First Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 1-9-1994 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajanpur, whereby application filed by the respondents under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has been accepted with the direction that the Land Acquisition Collector should have awarded compensation to them at the rate of Rs.5,000 per Marla and for setting aside the said judgment/award and to uphold the award dated 24-5-2002 announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (G.S.C.) WAPDA, Lahore.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in order to construct 132 K.V. Grid Station Jampur, 74 Kanals, 8 Marlas of land situated in Mauza Basti Gudden, Tehsil Jampur, District Rajanpur was acquired. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 24-1-1990 in the Punjab Gazette. The Land Acquisition Collector was appointed by the Government of the Punjab to complete the process according to the notification under section 17(4) and under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, land measuring

77. Kanals, 10 Marlas was acquired on the request of the WAPDA. The award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector for the said land on 24-5-1992 and the possession of the land was also taken on 20-2-1992 while allowing compensation to the landowners fixed at the rate of Rs.550 per Marla and also allowed Rs.2,25,000 as compensation of trees etc. The respondents being aggrieved of the said award moved an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the enhancement of the payment before the learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Court. In the reference it was stated by the respondents that the property was situated on Highway B Road at a distance of 2 kilometres from the office of Sub-Division Jampur; that the property falls within the Abadi; that the Degree College for Boys, Microwave Station, Middle School for Boys and Ghazali Industries are situated at a distance of 500/700 feet; that several plots were already sold or being sold for residential and commercial purposes and houses were also constructed near the land and that it was the best locality in the town. The market value of the land was claimed as Rs.15,000 per Marla and that the award at the rate of Rs.550 was inadequate and against the norms of justice.

3. The appellants submitted the written statement while denying the averments of the reference and claimed that the Land Acquisition Collector had fixed the correct rate of Rs.550 per Marla on the basis of "Oust Padawar" and was sustainable. The controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated the framing of the following issues:-- (1) Whether the reference was filed in the wrong form? (2) Whether the reference was filed within time? (3) Whether the Land Acquisition Collector had no jurisdiction to refer the time-barred objection to this Court? (4) Whether the reference is liable to be rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.?, (5) Whether the award has become final under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act? If so, with what effect? (6) Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate? If so, what was the correct compensation for the suit-land? (7) Relief, To prove the case the respondents produced Muhammad Mahmood one of the respondents as P.W.1, Muhammad Zamir Khan one of the respondents as P.W.2 and Rafique Hussain as P.W.3 besides copies of the sale-deeds Exh.P.2 to Exh.P.17, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 Exh.P.18 and copy of Aks Shajara Exh.P.19 and closed their evidence. On the other hand the appellants produced Saeedul Hassan Qanungo as R.W.1, Shahab-ud-Din Patwari R.W.2 and Jabbar Ahmad R.W.3 who was S.D.O. Civil Scarp Electrician WAPDA D.G. Khan and closed the defence evidence. Documents Exh.R.1 to R.5 were C also produced. The learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Judge has increased the price of the land at the rate of Rs.5,000 per Marla vide judgment dated 1-9-1994. Hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that sufficient evidence was produced on the record through the statements of official witnesses R.Ws.1 to 3 supported by the documentary evidence R.1 to R.5 and the, compensation was correctly fixed, which was not inadequate and the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment on surmises and conjectures; that the compensation so awarded is very excessive which is not in consonance with the price of the land at the time of acquiring the land through notification under section 4 of, the Land Acquisition Act; that the appellants have also filed an application for additional evidence which may be allowed in the interest of justice; that the reference being barred by ten days was liable to be dismissed; that the land was agricultural situate at a distance ok 3 kilometres from urban Abadi surrounded by Abadi Deh and was not used for commercial purposes but the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record while passing the ,impugned judgment which is against the facts and law. Relies upon AIR 1991 SC page 21 in support of his contentions. It is lastly contended that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector be restored.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and draws our attention to the documentary evidence produced before the Land Acquisition Collector and the learned trial Court and prays for dismissal of this appeal.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record as well as the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. The award shows that the claim of the respondents was that the value of the land was Rs.10,000 per Marla and not Rs.550 per Marla as approved by the Commissioner D.G. Khan Division and they also claimed that the possession was delivered to the Land Acquisition Collector on 24-4-1991 when the construction work was also completed by the WAPDA. The trees were standing on the land and were damaged. The Land Acquisition Collector inspected the site and found that the land under acquisition was costly being situated near the Factories, other Abadi and on metalled road (National Highway) which leads from D.G. Khan to Jampur. The sale-deeds of Muhammad Amir etc. were produced by the landowners and were examined but he fixed the price of the land at the rate of Rs.550 per Marla without any cogent reason for discarding the evidence produced by the respondents. P.W.1 D and P.W.2 remained consistent on the point that the land is situated at the National, Highway coming from D.G. Khan to Rajanpur. A Degreel College was constructed about 400/500, (feet) away from the land besides a Microwave Station and Ginning and Oil Factories and in front of the Degree College there were residential colonies and around the said land there was a hotel. It was also claimed that the price of the land was about Rs.6,000/7,000 per Marla which was situated 2 kilometre away from Rajanpur on the main road. Similar type of statement was made by P.W.3 and during cross.-examination nothing could be gained by the appellants from these witnesses.

7. On the other hand Saeedul Hassan Qanungo appeared as R.W.1 and produced "Oust Beh" for one year prepared by Patwari Halqa. The said Halqa Patwari who prepared Exh.R.1 was not produced though according to R.W.2 Shahab-ud-Din Patwari Halqa he was available and he could be produced. During cross-examination R.W.1 has admitted that he had not seen the acquired land and showed his ignorance about the exact location of the land. R.W.2 Shahab-ud-Din Patwari Halqa stated that Rab Nawaz Patwari and Qazi Ijaz Ahmad Qanungo who prepared Exh.R.1 and Exh.R.2 were alive, but they were not produced by the respondents. R.W.2 during cross-examination admitted that the land was situated on the National Highway and in front of the acquired land the respondents had sold their land for commercial and residential purposes. According to him the residential area started at a distance of 6/7 acres from the acquired land. R.W.3 also admitted that Microwave was 6/7 acres away from the acquired land; that the said land was situated within the limits of Chungi; that the land of other villages Basti Rindan and Basti Gudden and the acquired land was of the same nature and value; that the Basti Rindan some land was sold at the rate of Rs.10,000 per Marla; that according to contents of Exh.R.2 some of the land was sold at the rate of Rs.6,000 per Marla; that the land in Exh.R.2 also included agricultural land; and that some of the land in village Gudden was sold at the rate of Rs.5,000.

8. The documentary evidence produced by the respondents fully supports that the land in the vicinity was sold at the rate of Rs.6,000 or more than Rs.6,000 pier Marla and the learned trial Court has rightly relied upon the said documentary evidence which was proved by P.Ws.1 to 3 and it also find support from the statement of R.W.2 produced by the appellants. The assessment is supported by the evidence on the record I and the oral evidence can also be considered for the fixation of the price as laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Malik Aman and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others PLD 1988 SC

32. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the reference was barred by 10 days. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as also the Supreme Court of Pakistan that if reference is barred by time, it will have no effect as the reference cannot be directly filed in the Court and has to be filed to the Land Acquisition Collector who has to send the same to the Referee Judge. The time-barred reference cannot be dismissed for this reason and we do not find it a ground for interference as well.

9. During the pendency of this appeal C.M. No.1101/C of 1994 was filed by the appellants for placing on record certain documents as additional evidence. No reason has been given by the appellants that why the said evidence which they intend to produce could not be produced p before the learned trial Court. This Court as also the Supreme Court of Pakistan have repeatedly held that sufficient cause has to be shown by the party for producing additional evidence at the appellate stage but no such cause has been shown and this application having no merit is dismissed.

10. For the foregoing reasons we are satisfied that the impugned judgment is based on cogent reason, which is supported by the evidence on the record and calls for no interference. Hence this appeal having no merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./P-75/L Appeal dismissed,