1987 PLP 69 (SCMR)

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S.24‑‑Land acquisition‑‑Compensation‑‑Award‑‑Land acquired for public purposes‑ Finding of Collector in matter of Award that fruit‑bearing trees were planted after notification under S.4 of Act (I of 1894) and there being overwhelming evidence to show that said trees were planted after notification and in rebuttal petitioners' evidence being insignificant and doubtful, Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings of two Courts below and refused leave to appeal. Fida Muhammad Khan, Advocate instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Ibne Ali, Additional Advocate‑General with Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1986 ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Hazara at Haripur, dated 17‑6‑1978 and that of the High Court, dated 8‑5‑1983.

2. The Provincial Government had acquired the entire estate of village Gojra, Tehsil Haripur, District Abbottabad, for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector after completing the legal formalities announced his award bearing No.5 on 2‑9‑1969. Dissatisfied with the award, Sher Afzal (now respondent). Haq Nawaz and other petitioners filed objection petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the findings of the Collector. Besides other grounds, the objectors questioned the finding of the Collector that the fruit‑bearing trees were planted after the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was contested by the Government and the pleadings of the parties resulted in the framing of a number of issues of which we are presently concerned with issue No.4 which is to the effect: "Whether respondent No.1 has wrongly declared the fruit‑bearing trees of the objectors, which consist of Mangoes, Plum, Malta, Pomegranate, Date, Phagwar, Apricot, Peach, Banana, Beri, Fig, Sangtara and grapes as after notification alongwith the non‑fruit bearing trees of the objectors if so, to what fair compensation the objectors are entitled." After recording necessary evidence, the Reference Judge while agreeing with the finding of the Collector held that the fruit‑bearing trees were planted after the notification and thus the reference to that extent was rejected, vide judgment, dated 17‑6‑1978. Two appeals, one by the Government bearing No. R.F.A. 104 of 1979 and the other bearing No. R.F A. 40 of 1978 by the petitioners were filed in the High Court. Both the appeals were taken up together and the learned Judges, vide their impugned judgment dismissed the appeal of the respondents but partially accepted Appeal No. 40 of 1978. It is now judgment in R.F.A. No. 40 of 1978 from which leave is being sought.

3. We have heard Mr. Fida Muhammad Khan, Advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. S. Ibne iAli, Additional Advocate‑General, for the caveator and the judgments of the Courts below alongwith award No.5 have been perused. We are of the view that the Courts below have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners in respect of the fruit‑bearing trees inasmuch as there is overwhelming evidence furnished by the respondent that the fruit‑bearing trees were planted after the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The evidence which the petitioners had brought in support of their case was not only insignificant but was rather doubtful and thus has been rightly rejected by the Courts below. Since both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioners have failed to establish their case, therefore, we find no justification to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Courts below. The petition has, therefore, no merit and is dismissed. M.I Petition dismissed.