2016 PLP 200 (YLRN)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this appeal, appellants have challenged the judgment passed by the learned Referee Court i.e. learned Senior Civil Judge, Khanewal dated 19.4.2008 whereby reference filed by the appellants was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that land owned by the predecessor of the appellants measuring 31 Kanals 2 marlas situated in Mauza Kohi Wala, Tehsil Kabirwala District Khanewal was acquired for construction of Additional Carriage Way (Multan-Mianchannu Section N-5) and for its compensation, Award No. 18 dated 14.9.2002 was declared whereby the price of the land was determined at the rate of Rs.5000/- per marla for category-A and Rs:3000/- for category-B. Appellants being dissatisfied with the compensation preferred reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 claiming plain rate of land as Rs:10,000/- per marla for whole of the land stating that it is residential-cum-commercial land. Same was sent for adjudication before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khanewal as Referee Court. The respondent acquiring agency resisted the same. After recording of evidence, the learned Referee Court dismissed the same.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the demand of Rs:10,000/- per marla made by the appellants was justified. States that Exh.A.2 has been produced whereby as per report of the revenue field staff the market price of the land is Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- per marla, therefore, states that this appeal be accepted and compensation be enhanced in accordance with the demand made by the appellants.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents state that the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 1995, therefore, one year preceding average price was to be taken into consideration and already respondent agency has granted the maximum rate of compensation. Reliance has been placed upon PLD 2002 SC 84 "Hyderabad Development Authority through its M.D. Civic Centre, Thandi Sarak Road, Hyderabad v. Abdul Majeed and others", 2012 SCMR 1201 "Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and another v. Gobinda Chandra Makal and another" and 2003 YLR 3287 "Liyar Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector/A.C., Swabi" Lastly argues that the documents produced by the appellants were not proved by producing the author of the documents, therefore, reliance cannot be made upon those documents. Pray for dismissal of the appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, gone through the record appended with this appeal, evidence produced by both the parties oral as well as documentary, the findings recorded by both the courts below and the case law referred to by learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The main reliance of learned counsel is upon Exh.A.2, which are reports of the revenue field staff. As per the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents, same are not per se admissible when the author of the reports have not been produced. We have further examined that in Exh.A2 average price of the year 1995-1996 has been mentioned as Rs.2922/- per marla whereas the market price has been mentioned as Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- per marla whereas the crucial year for determination of compensation of the acquired land is one year before the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and admittedly notification under section 4 of the Act, ibid was issued on 20.7.1995. In this view of the matter, we see no force in this appeal in the light of the case law referred by learned counsel for the respondents. Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed. RR/K-34/L Appeal dismissed.