1994 PLP 1648 (SCMR)

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 20‑7‑1992.

2. The facts in brief are that an area of land measuring 203 acres, 3 rode and 38 pols in Mahal Viala Mehtarzai Mauza Mehtarzai, Tappa Baleli, Tehsil and District Quetta, was acquired to establish Waste Water Treatment Plant. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 12‑9‑1990 and notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 2‑10‑1990. The Collector by Award dated 26‑11‑1990 fixed the compensation as Rs.22,000 per acre with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The respondent received the amount under protest. On a reference made to the learned District Judge, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,30,680 per acre. Both the parties went in appeal before the High Court. The learned High Court disposed of both the appeals by the common judgment and awarded compensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs.1,12,000 per acre.

3. The appellants being aggrieved, have challenged the decision of the learned High Court in these two appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent raised a prelim4nary objection that the appeal on behalf of the appellants was not competent. Re~ance was placed on Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer (PLD 1987 SC 485) and Land Acquisition Collector v. Muhammad Iqbal (1992 SCMR 1245). This Court in the above‑noted decisions and in Iftikhar Hussain Shah v. Pakistan (1991 SCMR 2193) has held that "Neither section 18 nor section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act confer a right of reference either on the company or on the local authority for whose benefit the land is being acquired". In the light of the settled view of this Court, no doubt the appeal of the appellant was not competent before the learned High Court but the respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned High Court after assessing the entire material on record decided the matter. The respondent did not challenge the judgment of the High Court and accepted its verdict, therefore, this technical objection at this stage cannot be gone into.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Collector was fair and equitable. He submitted that the learned Judge in the High Court has ignored the documents Exhs. R.1 to R.7 produced by the appellants and placed reliance on the exhibits produced by the respondents. The learned High Court has referred to the documents produced by the appellants and has observed as under:‑‑ "The amount mentioned in revenue entries Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/7 of same Mohal supplements stand taken by WASA. Admittedly land?owners purchased suit‑land in year 1981. No portion of said land has at all been alienated or sold during this period. There is no tengible evidence of improvement carried out on said portion of land. Documentary evidence mentions value of lana`situatW in the Mohal without specifying its potential capacity." It, therefore, cannot be said that the learned High Court has not examined the documents produced by the appellants. In the impugned judgment, Exhs.P.4 and P.5 were taken into consideration for awarding the compensation. Exhs.P.4 and P.5 are dated 29‑4‑1991. While dealing with these documents the High Court has stated as hereunder:‑‑ "There is nothing on record to reflect that said value has been incorrectly mentioned by the parties or for any reason lower price than actually paid was incorporated while recording Exh.P/4 and Exh.P/5. It may be seen that Exh.P/4 and Exh.P/5 speak of small pieces of land whereas acquired land relates to large‑tract, therefore, normally prices vary, admittedly by all standards price of small piece of land in comparison to big area is always on sufficiently higher side. Considering these aspects even if maximum latitude is shown for ascertaining real potential value of acquired land, we have to bank upon best evidence produced by land‑owners. Obviously. Exh.P/4 and Exh.P/5 relates to period subsequent to notification which normally has neither relevancy nor evidentiary value. Anyhow Val, proper or potential value ascertained keeping in view nature and size of acquired land, its intended use, proximity with developed area and frontage on main road."

6. On the basis of these documents, the learned High Court awarded the compensation. It cannot be said that compensation awarded by the High Court is based on no evidence.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants after consulting some officers of the appellants, submitted that the appellants are, prepared to return the land to the respondents. The respondents also accepted this proposal but thereafter the learned counsel for the appellants, sought time to seek instructions from the higher authorities but as he could not contact them, therefore, this proposal did not materialise.

8. There is no force in these appeals. The appeals accordingly are dismissed. A.A./W‑130/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.