1989 PLP 1255 (MLD)

During the course of trial of the reference, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, appointed Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate, Sheikhupura, as commission to ascertain the rparket value of the land in dispute as also of the crops standing threreon at the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. After visiting the spot, holding inquiry and receiving evidence of the parties the commissioner assessed the value of the land as under:‑‑ (i) 18 Kanals 15 Marlas of Nchri laud at the rat of Rs.6,000 per acre. Rs. 14,055 (ii) 15 Kanals 17 Marlas of Banjar land at the rate of Rs.3,000 per acre Rs. 5,931 (iii) 385 Kkar trees at the rate of Rs.50 per tree Rs. 19,250 (iv) Compensation for crops Rs. 7,031 Total Rs.46,267

4. Although the appellant filed objections to the findings of the Commissioner recorded in his report yet it did not produce any evidence, to substantiate them. As the perusal of the order of the learned trial Court indicates the appellant was given several opportunities to produce evidence but it did not avail of any and, therefore, its evidence was closed. In the circumstances the learned Court accepted the determination of the value of the land and of the trees as found by' the commissioner though it did not uphold the entitlement the respondent to receive compensation for any of the missing crops. 15 per cent of the value was given to the respondent in consideration of compulsory acquisition and he was also allowed to receive compound interest at the rate of per cent per annum for two years. Making adjustment for the amount the compensation already received by him the appellant was directed to pay hire further sum of Rs.46,

247. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has approached this Court in appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Court ought not to have appointed a commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the land rather it ought to have performed this function itself. However, the appellant did not raise any objection to the appointment of the Commissioner and it need hardly be stressed that the learned trial Coot possessed full powers to make such appointment. If the appellant did not chose to adduce evidence in support of its objection to the commissioner s report it is itself to blame. The conclusion reached by the commissioner is based on evidence which forms part of the record. His finding can very well be justified from the evidence produced before him. Therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Court which is based on the commissioner's report.

6. It was the respondent's stand that he had not been served with any notice of the acquisition proceedings and that he neither appeared nor was represented before the Land Acquisition Collector. The appellant did not produce any material to indicate that the respondent ever put in appearance in person or through an authorised agent before the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, the reference in the award by the Land Acquisition Collector that persons interested had appeared before him and had made a joint statement that they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.3,500 per acre of land cannot be deemed to be binding upon the respondent or to prevent him from putting forth the claim of compensation mentioned in the reference.

7. In view of the above the appeal is found to be without any force and is dismissed with costs. M.Z.S./L‑55/L Appeal dismissed.