2020 PLP 13 (YLRN)

RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.

Validity of the judgment of the High Court dated 24.5.2018 has been called in question by the appellant, herein, whereby his appeal was dismissed.

2. The gist of the facts involved in the case in hand, is that the land owned by the appellant, comprising khasra No.845, measuring one Kanal and 4 marlas, situated at village Hajira, was acquired by the respondents for the public purpose i.e. the construction of a Rest House, vide award No.1421, dated 15.10.2009, in lieu of Rs.52,000/- per marla. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the appellant filed a reference application in the Court of Reference Judge, claiming therein that the land awarded by respondents is of commercial nature and its market value is not less than Rs.2,50,000/-. The respondents, herein, contested the reference by filing written statement, wherein, it was stated that the appellant has no cause of action to file the reference. It was further stated that the reference is barred by limitation and is also against the law. It was further alleged that the Collector determined the value of the land as per agreement executed between the parties. The learned Reference Judge framed the issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties and directed them to lead evidence in support of their respective claim. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Reference Judge, vide judgment and decree doted 29.12.2012, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.77,917/- per marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Feeling dissatisfied from the aforesaid enhanced compensation, the appellant approached the High Court by filing an appeal. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings, though the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.05.2018, dismissed the appeal, hence this appeal by leave.

3. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, advocate, counsel for the appellant, submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the factual and legal aspect of the case in its true perspective, which resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. He added that it escaped the notice of the Courts below that the land is situated in the centre of Hajeera bazaar and the same was acquired for construction of the rest house. It was next argued by the learned counsel that no reasoning whatsoever has been assigned for not awarding adequate compensation on the strength of the evidence i.e. Ex.PA and PB, which remained un-rebutted. The learned counsel added that the learned trial Court has not kept in mind the potential value of the land. He further added that the market value of the land was proved through oral and documentary evidence but the same has not been taken into account by both the Courts below. In continuation of the arguments, the learned counsel submitted that the marginal witnesses of the sale-deeds were produced, who made the statements in line with the record but in spite of this fact, the learned thrial Court has enhanced very meager amount and the learned High Court, without appreciating the evidence, endorsed the findings in an arbitrary manner. The learned counsel forcefully argued that there was no justification whatsoever for not making further enhancement by the learned High Court.

4. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Ismail, advocate, counsel for the respondents, strongly opposed the arguments of the counsel for the appellant by submitting that the judgment is perfectly legal in all aspects, which is not open for interference. He added that the trial Court has already made a reasonable enhancement on the strength of evidence. The learned counsel referred to the relevant part of the trial Courts judgment while submitting that the evidence, on which the appellant is heavily relying, was taken into consideration properly. The learned counsel lastly submitted that further enhancement would cause burden to the public exchequer, which is not fair and just.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment along with the record made available.

6. From scrutiny of the record it appears that the market value of the land was settled through negotiation, which is apparent from the award. For proper appreciation, we deem it proper to reproduce the relevant portion of the award, which reads as under:-- Before adverting to the other points raised by the counsel for the appellant, he was asked to meet this situation that how the appellant can claim the compensation more than what he has agreed to receive. He failed to offer any explanation in this regard, however, he submitted that it is an omission on the part of the Collector Land Acquisition. Even otherwise, the Collector was under obligation to assess the compensation fairly and justly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. This explanation is repelled, as, nothing has been said nor any ground has been taken in the reference application in this regard. The appellant also failed to satisfy the Court that there was any sufficient reason for his omission. In this state of affairs, this aspect of the case cannot be ignored as the same is covered by the provisions of section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein, it has categorically been mentioned that when the appellant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed. The provision clearly postulates that where a landowner has claimed a certain sum before the Collector Land Acquisition, he cannot claim a larger sum in his reference to the Court. Thus, it may be observed that the appellant was not entitled to claim the amount more than he agreed upon and negotiated.

7. In this state of affairs, as the appellant has already received more than his claim, therefore, the case of further enhancement has not been made out. Although this aspect of the case has not been taken into account by the Courts below but, as no cross-appeal is before us, therefore, we do not intend to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below in this regard.

8. As we are unanimous on the point that the appellant was not justified to claim enhancement as he agreed to the received amount in the award, there is no need to discuss the other points raised in the appeal. On the basis of what has been discussed above, we do not find any substance in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. ZC/62/SC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.