2006 PLP 1316 (CLC)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 1-4-2000, passed by learned Judge, Land Acquisition Charsadda, whereby the objection petition filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for enhancement of the compensation for the land acquired, has been dismissed.

2. Vide Award No.231, announced on 13-6-1993, land measuring 130 Kanals and 8 Marlas, in the area of Village Zarin Abad, Charsadda, was acquired by respondent No.5 i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector, Swabi Scarp WAPDA, Mardan, for a public purpose, namely, for the Remolding of Zarin Abad drain. Necessary formalities as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were completed and Acquisition Collector assessed compensation at the rate of Rs.700 per Marla for "Shahnehri' and Rs. 175 per Marlas for `Ghair Mumkin' kind of land, along with usual compulsory acquisition charges and interest.

3. The objection petition was strongly resisted on all grounds, legal as well as factual and compensation amount was stated to have been fixed fairly and reasonably, keeping in view the potentiality and future prospective of land in addition to one year average. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the framing of following issues:-- (1) Whether the objectors have got a cause of action? (2) Whether the objection petition is incompetent in its present form? (3) Whether the petition is time-barred? (4) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this petition? (5) Whether cost of compensation as given in award is inadequate and not in accordance with market rates? (6) Whether objectors are entitled to the relief claimed for? (7) Relief.

4. At the conclusion of trial, learned Acquisition Judge after taking into consideration the material available on record, dismissed the objection petition per the impugned judgment, holding that the Collector has already fixed the high rate for the acquired land and no reason exists to interfere in the award under reference.

5. Mr. Maazullah Barkandi, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that legal and factual aspects of the case have not been examined in its true perspective and the learned trial Court has passed its conclusion on conjectural presumptions having no nexus whatsoever with the record of the case and that it is a case of misreading and non-reading of evidence because documentary evidence led by the appellants to substantiate their claim has not been taken into consideration with diligent application of mind. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel reiterated that a Local Commissioner was appointed to verify about the potential value of the land in question and to give proper report about its market value according to its position and location on the spot. The Commission visited the spot and collected evidence according to which the rate per Marla for "Shahnehri" type of land was determined as Rs.3,000 and Rs.2,500 per Marla for "Ghair Mumkin" kind of land. The learned Judge did not give any reason while rejecting the commission's report, which has resulted in manifest injustice. To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Collector Land Acquisition, Peshawar and others v. Rokhan and others PLD 1995 Pesh. 78.

6. As against that, Mr. Anwar Hussain, Advocate, representing the respondents supported the impugned judgment whole heartedly, maintaining that the compensation has been assessed properly and fairly, keeping in view the potential value of the land acquired and no legitimate exception can be taken to it. In this regard, he placed reliance on Malik Nasim Ahmad Aheer and 4 others v. WAPDA and 3 others PLD 2004 SC 897.

7. Needless to emphasize that the party claiming enhanced compensation must produce evidence to show that the award is inadequate. If he has no evidence, the award must stand and if he succeeds in showing prima facie that the award is inadequate, the Government must support the award by producing evidence. No doubt, it is true that consideration should be had to all the potential uses to which the land can be put, as well as all the advantages, present or future, which the land possesses in the hands of the owner and in determining the quantum of fair compensation, the main citation is the price which a buyer would pay to a seller for the property if they voluntarily enter into the transaction and while determining amount of compensation, the potentiality and future perspective of land in addition to one year average is to be kept in mind but in the present case nothing has been brought on the file to show that the potentiality and future perspective of land in question, has not been taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation. The mere assertion of the appellants that the land acquired is on the road side and can be used for commercial purposes, without a positive attempt on their part to substantiate the same, is of no consequence.

8. So far as Commission report is concerned, expert evidence though of great assistance in determining compensation has its limitations. It abounds with uncertainty and gives more than ordinary scope for guess work. In the instant case, report of Commission has been discarded for valid reasons and no exception can be taken to it.

9. In sequel to the above discussion, the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector by means of Award No.231 dated 13-6-1993, being unexceptionable does' not call for interference. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, justifying interference of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./97/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.