2021 PLP 766 (MLD)

SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.

Facts, in concision, are as such that a patch of land owned by the appellant, measuring 13 kanals 13 marlas, comprising Khasra No.92-93, Khata No.444- 447, situated in Mauza Gaddai Sharqi, Tehsil and District D.G.Khan was acquired for construction of D.G. Khan bypass in Mauza Gaddai Sharqi, Tehsil and District D.G. Khan by the respondent No.1-Land Acquisition Collector, National Highway Authority, Indas Highway Project, through Award No.6 dated 01.11.2001. Being aggrieved of the said Award, the appellant requested the competent authority to refer the matter to the Referee Court for determination of the compensation, as required under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by contending that the impugned Award has been announced without observing the mandatory provisions of law and without giving of necessary notices under the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that he should have been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35,000/ per marla for "commercial front road" and Rs.15,000/- per marla for "commercial off road" but instead the price was assessed as Rs.20,000/- per marla in case of "commercial front road", Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per marla in case of "commercial off road" and for agricultural land at the rate of Rs.400,000/- per acre. The Reference was contested by the respondents. Out of the divergence in pleadings, the learned referee Court framed as many as seven issues including "Relief" and invited evidence of the parties. The parties adduced their evidence, oral as well as documentary, in support of their respective contentions. The learned Referee Court vide impugned judgment dated 19.04.2004 dismissed the reference; hence, the instant appeal.

2. It is noteworthy that earlier this Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2010 dismissed the appeal. The appellant challenged the said judgment in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing Civil Appeal No.208 of 2011, which was accepted vide order dated 20.02.2018 and matter was sent back to this Court with the following observation:- 'The learned High Court though has upheld the finding of the learned Referee Court whereby the amount of compensation determined in the award has not been interfered with, but the petitioners' counsel has drawn our attention to the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner whereby the price of the land in the area was settled and this document at all has not been considered by the learned Appellate Court as well as the learned High Court, which is a clear case of misreading of evidence. Resultantly, while accepting these appeals we remand the matter back to the learned High Court to consider the entire documentary as also the oral evidence on the record in the light of the issue and pass judgment afresh.'

3. Heard.

4. Factors to be taken into consideration by the Court in assessing the compensation of acquired land are:- (i) Its market value at the prevalent time and its potential; (ii) One year average of sale (price) of similar land before publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (iii) Likelihood of development and improvement of the land; (iv) What a willing purchaser would pay to a willing buyer in an open market arm's length transaction entered into without any compensation; (v) Loss or injury by change of residence or place of business and loss of profit; (vi) Delay in the consummation of acquisition proceedings; and (vii) Peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Moreover, when a party is interested in enhancement of the compensation, he owes a duty to discharge the burden by producing convincing, trustworthy and solid evidence for such purpose. Potential value of the property cannot be determined on the basis of mere oral assertion on behalf of the land owner. Reliance is placed on Hyderabad Development Authority through MD., Civic Centre, Hyderabad v. Abdul Majeed and others (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 84). When we go through the record, it emerges that the appellant, in support of his contention, has appeared as his own witness as (A.W.1) and produced two officials of the office of D.O.(R) and E.D.O.(R), D.G. Khan and got exhibited seven documents, which include the report of District Price Assessment Committee (Ex.A4) and the valuation table prepared by the District Collector, D.G. Khan in the year 1998 (Ex.A7), which finds mentioned in clear cut manner that the same is being prepared for the purposes of computation of ad-valorem Stamp Duty and not for any other purpose; meaning thereby the oral assertion made by the appellant is not sufficient to outwit the documentary evidence produced by the respondents in the shape of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R89, which are mutations and registered sale deed and documents Ex.R7 to Ex.R17 relate to urban land whereas Ex.R18 to Ex.R89 relate to rural land and the said documents/mutations/sale deeds are of surrounding lands, sold at the relevant time or preceding year, of the acquired land of appellant. Apart from this, it is evident from the copies of Khasra Girdawries from Kharif 1998 to Rabi 2002 (Ex.R87) that the land is still agricultural and even remaining land of the appellant i.e. 1 kanal 4 marlas is included in the same and this fact finds support from his admission during cross examination that the land in question is situated 4/5 miles away from D.G. Khan city and even he was sure about the exact nature of the Mauza as he stated that he did not know whether the land was agricultural or urban and nothing was brought on record to show that the status of land was changed from agricultural to commercial or urban; as against this, the respondents by leading documentary evidence had established that the land in question was agricultural in nature and the Board of Revenue through special Committee, correspondence of which was exhibited on record, inspected the spot and assessed the compensation keeping in view the average sale price of the area.

5. The mainstay of the appellant that the District Price Assessment Committee assessed the price of the land in dispute as Rs.35,000/- per marla, so the same should have been awarded to him, but in this regard it is observed that the assessment of the District Price Assessment Committee was not based on independent inspection of the spot and the same was founded on the valuation table prepared by the District Collector, D.G. Khan in the year 1998 (Ex.A7), which was prepared only for the purposes of calculation of ad valorem Stamp Duty and not for any other purpose, whereas the Board of Revenue, inspected the spot, through Committee and fixed the compensation in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the appellant could not point out any mala fide on the part of the Board of Revenue in determining the compensation as declared in the Award No.6 as there is no bar upon the Board of Record to assess the reasonability of the compensation assessed by the District Price Assessment Committee.

6. In addition to the above, the appellant has taken reasonable compensation of the RCC Factory as per record produced by the respondents. The appellant has failed to rebut the documentary evidence produced by the respondents showing that the adjacent land was higher in price than awarded to him by the respondents through issuance of award, because a man can tell a lie but a document not and to outdo a documentary proof, better and cogent evidence in shape of document has to be produced, which is lacking in this case on behalf of the appellant. Moreover, when we examine the record, it appears that the appellant was owner of 11 kanals 01 marla land and the same was acquired, whereas the appellant received compensation for 13 kanals and 11 marlas of land, which was beyond his entitlement. As such, the learned Referee Court keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case as well as all the factors, to be taken into consideration by the Court in assessing the compensation of acquired land, has rightly decided the issue, because the Board of Revenue after spot inspection through Committee, constituted by it for the said purpose, has rightly assessed the compensation for the acquired land. The appellant, as stated above, has failed to make out a case for enhancement of compensation as claimed by him in the reference.

7. In view of the above, this Court holds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, rather vested jurisdiction has judiciously been exercised after examining record and appreciating law on the subject. Resultantly, while placing reliance on the judgment supra as well as the judgments reported as Air Weapon Complex through DG v. Muhammad Aslam and others (2018 SCMR 779), Civil Aviation Authority through Project Director and others v. Rab Nawaz and others (2013 SCMR 1124), Abdul Sattar v. Land Acquisition Collector Highways Department and others (2010 SCMR 1523) and National Highway Authority through Chairman and 2 others v. Bashir Ahmad and 2 others (2018 CLC Note 63), the appeal in hand having no force and substance stands dismissed with no order as to the costs. MQ/M-26/L Appeal dismissed.