2020 PLP 13 (CLCN)

CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, C.J.

This order shall decide the titled petition for leave to appeal filed against the common judgment of the High Court dated 05.12.2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Collector Land Acquisition Muzaffarabad, acquired land comprising survey No. 175 min measuring 01 kanal situated at village Pharwali for the construction of Electricity Department and crafted its award No. 12/2-921/2008 on 17.07.2008, whereby, the compensation was fixed as Rs. 26400 per marla. It was averred that the respondent filed a reference against the said award. The petitioners, herein, (respondents therein) were summoned who appeared before the Court and filed written statement, wherein, they repudiated the claim of the respondent, herein, on different grounds. The learned Reference Judge/Additional District Judge, Hajira after due process of law and hearing the parties enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 109,55/- per Marla along with 15% CAC vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012. Against the said judgment and decree, two cross appeals were filed before the High Court. The learned High Court consolidated both the appeals and after necessary proceedings has dismissed both the appeals through impugned judgment, hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

3. Mr. Muhammad Noorullah Qureshi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners after narration of necessary facts submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is not according to law. The learned High Court has ignored that the Reference Judge enhanced the compensation in an arbitrary manner without legally admissible evidence. These are vital points justifying grant of leave.

4. Conversely, Raja Muhammad Hafeez Tahir, Advocate, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent opposed the petition on the ground that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are misconceived. There are concurrent recorded findings of facts. The learned Reference Judge in the light of pleading of the parties has framed the issues on material proposition. The parties were provided opportunity to produce the evidence, whereby, the landowner-respondent produced the legal documentary evidence including the copies of sale-deeds of the locality. The petitioners failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal. It is also worth mentioning that the potential value of the land is commercial situated in Municipal area and this fact has also been proved by the evidence, thus, there is no legal ground justifying grant of leave.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record made available. According to the record, there are concurrent recorded findings of the facts against the petitioners. The landowner-respondent in relation to determine the market value of property has tendered in evidence the copies of sale-deeds dated 28.08.2007 Ex-PC, 22.08.2008 Ex-PF, 29.10.2008 Ex.PF, 17.05.2008, Ex.PG and also produced Tariq Masood, Muhammad Farooq, Mirza Ishfaq, Muhammad Khalil along with his own statement as oral evidence, whereas, the evidence produced by the land-owner remained unrebutted because the petitioners, herein, have failed to produce any sort of evidence in rebuttal. The learned Reference Judge after proper appreciation of evidence clearly recorded that the acquired land is situated in the town area of Hajira on main Tatta Pani Kotli road and the nature of the land is commercial. Even from the record of the Collector land acquisition the one year's average price has been mentioned as 6,80,000/- per kanal. Although according to the evidence the market value is proved to be much higher but the learned Reference Judge after proper appreciation of evidence and consideration of documentary evidence has adequately enhanced the compensation of the acquired land which is neither arbitrary nor against the record. It has been already mentioned that the petitioners have not produced any evidence in rebuttal. The learned Court below in this state of affairs, has not committed any illegality while handing down the impugned judgment. Therefore, finding no force, this petition for leave to appeal stand dismissed. SA/68/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.