2021 PLP 2310 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.

Through this Regular First Appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2016, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge/ Referee Court, Multan dismissed the Reference filed by the appellants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/Multan Development Authority acquired land measuring 21 Kanal 01 Marla from the revenue estate Moza Pir Habiba Sial, Tehsil and District Multan for construction of Southern Bypass and issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 17.05.2003 published in the Punjab Gazette on 03.02.2005 and the notification under sections 17(4) and 6 of the Act ibid was issued on 03.111.2007, published in the Punjab Gazette on 08.11.2007 and. the Award No.4 of 2009 was announced on 15.01.2009. Being aggrieved of the price assessed by the respondents in the said award, the appellants filed Reference under section 18 of the Act ibid contending therein that the land of the appellants is commercial in nature and value Rs.80 lac per acre whereas the respondents has fixed the value of the suit land as Rs.5 lac per acre considering its nature as agricultural one. The respondents contested the Reference. The learned trial Court framed issues, recorded pro and contra evidence of the parties and vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2016 dismissed the reference. Hence, this appeal.

3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

4. Issue No.7 is the vital issue in this case which is reproduced as under: Whether the reference petitioner has not been adequately compensated through impugned award? OPA In order to dissipate the onus of issue, Syed WaQar Hussain Zaidi, attorney of the appellants (P. W.1) deposed that for construction of southern bypass, the land measuring 21 Kanal 01 Marla was acquired in 2003 and award was announced in 2009 and compensation was given at the rate of Rs.3100/- per Marla; that his property is situated at a distance of 1 to 1.5 furlong from Vehari Road; that his property is commercial in nature, as such, the compensation according to commercial rate may be given. In cross-examination, he admitted that notification under section 4(1) was issued on 17.05.2003; that he filed objections under section 17 of the Act but did not append any documentary evidence; that they received compensation amount of Rs.15,12,969/- under protest. He further deposed that: The appellants produced Syed Shozab Ali Zaidi (PW.2) who though reiterated the facts as contended by the appellants but in the cross-examination, he deposed that: Same is the situation with the Shahzad Ahmad Abbas (A.W.3). The cross-examination of these witnesses (A.W.2 and A.W. 3) shows that they have no personal knowledge regarding details of the lis, as such, statements of these witnesses are based on mere hearsay evidence which has narrow scope of intrinsic value until and unless same has been corroborated with other evidence, whereas Article 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 requires that oral evidence shall be direct and hearsay evidence is not admissible. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Gulzar Ahmad and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2003 SCMR 1008) and Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Sadiq (2007 SCMR 957).

5. Conversely Zulfiqar Ahmad, Colony Clerk, office of Deputy Commissioner, Multan (R.W.1) produced report of DDOR regarding average market price of agricultural land of Moza Pir Mehmood Habiba Sial (Exh.R.1), attested copy of average price of mutations from 03.03.2014 to 02.03.2005 of agricultural land at the rate of Rs.355630/- per acre (Exh.R.2), attested copy of average price agricultural land of Moza Pir Mehmood Habiba Sial at the rate of Rs.500,000/- per acre (Exh.R.3), attested copy of DPAC meeting, dated 19.03.2008 Letter No.72 /EDOR/LAC (Exh.R.4), Letter No.454-2008/71l of Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore dated 27.08.2008 regarding approval of compensation price (Exh.R.5), Agreement in favour of District Officer (Revenue)/ District Collector, Multan regarding acquisition of Southern Bypass Scheme from Canal Branch to Chowk Bypass Bahawalpur, Multan (Exh.R.6), attested copy of Award No.4/09 dated 15.01.2009 (Exh.R.7). This witness of the respondents produced the material documents showing the market value of the land in question and statement of this witness was not cross-examined by the appellants, as such, the statement of the witness" as per law, will be deemed to be admitted. Reliance is placed on Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through LRs v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi (1991 SCMR 2300).

6. The appellants claimed that the suit land is commercial in nature, and situated near the Vehari Road but they were under legal obligation to prove their claim through leading, trustworthy, corroborative and unimpeachable evidence but neither they mentioned in their statement any contemporary sale transaction of the land nor produced any sale deeds/mutations of land immediately adjacent to the acquired land situated at Moza Pir Mehmood Habiba Sial. The appellants have also not produced any visual site plan to substantiate their stance. Furthermore, to prove their stance that the land is situated near Vehari Road, the appellants should have produced the Parcha Aks Shajra or any other valid document in this regard demonstrating the exact location of the acquired property but no such material evidence is available on the record which flaw dismantle the asserted stance. Reliance is placed on the case titled Abdul Sattar v. Land Acquisition Collector Highways Department and others (2010 SCMR 1523) wherein it was held that:-- "

12. In our considered opinion the petitioner has failed to substantiate that the land in question was superior as compared to the other land in the vicinity. It also could not be established that it was a commercial land and it could not be such because construction of brick-kiln installed by the petitioner was not disputed. It would have no bearing on merits of the case as to whether it was functional or otherwise but it indicates the nature of the land which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as commercial. The petitioner also failed even to point out the exact distance between the land in question and that of the road. The learned ASC was asked pointedly that as to how Aks Shajra Kishtwar could be taken into consideration which was never got exhibited hence no evidentiary value could be attached to it but no answer could be given." This Court has discussed this issue in detail in a recent judgment cited as Lahore Ring Road Authority and others v. Mian Mumtaz Ahmad and others (2021 CLC 178).

7. It also transpires from the record that the documentary evidence (Exh.A.1 to Exh.A.15) has been produced in trial proceedings by the learned counsel for the appellants in his statement which is not a valid tenders of the document whereas law requires that the documents relied upon or on the basis of the case has been filed, should be produced in the evidence by party itself and a fair opportunity should be given to the opposite party to cross-examine the same, as such, the documents produced by the appellant's counsel cannot be relied upon as valid piece of evidence and ordinarily such documents are excluded from taking into consideration. Reliance is placed on the cases titled as Mst. Hameeda Begum and others v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others (2007 SCMR 996), Federation Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khan and others (PLD 2010 SC 604) and Province of the Punjab through Collector, Sheikhupura and others v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah and others (2017 SCMR 172). The appellants/petitioners failed to substantiate the assertions made in the Reference through any concrete and trustworthy oral as well as documentary evidence, as such, the learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the Reference which just decision does not require any indulgence from this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any illegality, material irregularity or misreading of evidence in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial court, which does not call for any interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction.

9. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. MQ/M-73/L Appeal dismissed.