1994 PLP 126 (CLC)

3. In support of their case the respondents examined Muhammad Hussain one of the owners of the land as A.W.1. The documentary evidence produced by the respondents was as follows:‑‑ (1) Site‑plan Exh A.l. (2) Certified copy of application Exh. A.2. (3) Certified copy of order of A.C. dated 15‑5‑1974. (4) Certified copy of order in a case titled "Ghulam Ahmad v. Collector, Land Acquisition" as A.W.4. (5) Certified copy of letter No. 453, dated 25‑4‑1984 Exh. A.5. (6) Certified copies of mutations Exh.A. 6 to ExhA.10. (7) Certified copy of award No. 3 ExhA.11. (8) Certified copy of order passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition Exh.A. 12. (9) Certified copy of Jamabandi for the year 1970‑71 as Exh. A.13. (10) Certified copy of Jamabandi for the year 1970‑71 as A.W. 14. (11) Certified copy of disputed award dated 16‑8‑1971 as Exh. A.W.15. All these documents were admitted in evidence subject ‑to objection raised on behalf of the appellants.

4. In rebuttal the appellants examined Muhammad Akram, Head Clerk as R.W.

1. The documentary evidence produced by the appellants consist of copy of disputed award dated 16‑8‑1971 Exh.R. 1 and Exh.R. 2 and copy of `Aunt Yaksala' Exh.R3.

5. The trial Court decided issue No.l in favour of the respondents. Under issue No.2 it was held that the reference was not barred by time. Issue No3 was answered in favour of the respondents by holding that merely because the respondents had received the compensation determined by the Collector in the award was no ground to hold that they could not maintain the reference. Under issue No.4 it was held that the respondents were entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.800 per Marla which was maiket value of the land at the relevant time. Under issue No.4 it was held that the appellants failed to produce any evidence to discharge onus of this issue, therefore, the same was decided against them. In the result the trial Court through judgment dated 14‑6‑1986 awarded compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs.8W per Marla. This judgment/award has been challenged in these appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly challenged the finding of the trial Court on issue No.4 as that was the material issue in the case. The trial Court overruled the objection raised by the appellants regarding admissibility of documents as ExhA.l to ExhA.5 in evidence and learned counsel for the appellants when questioned has not been able to satisfy us that the admission of those documents in evidence suffered from any legal defect.

7. The main burden of argument presented by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of these appeals was that the finding has been recorded by the trial Court on the basis of a judgment Exh.A. 4 passed in some other case without independent application of judicial mind to the evidence produced by the parties in this case.

8. We have examined the evidence produced by the parties. Muhammad Hussain A.W. 1 stated that the value assessed by the Collector at the rate of Rs.420 per Marla was inadequate and in doing so the location, surroundings, commercial nature and quality of land was altogether ignored. According to him the average market value of the land at the relevant time was Rs.1,200 per Marla. In support of his this statement he produced in evidence Exh.A. 4 which is a judgment dated 18‑5‑1974 passed in similar Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, regarding land situated in the same village which was acquired in May, 1971 for construction of the same General Bus Stand in which the Collector delivered award on the same date i.e. 16‑8‑1971. The Collector/Provincial Government was party in the said case. The compensation was assessed in that case at Rs.1,000 per Marla. It also appears that the said case was also contested by the appellants and it was held that no evidence was produced by the appellants in that case to rebut the evidence produced by the owner of the land.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants maintained that this judgment having not been passed between the parties in this case, therefore, any finding recorded in that judgment could not operate as res judicata qua the issue raised in this case.

10. It may be true that strictly speaking the said judgment may not operate as res judicata but the fact remains that a similarly situated land in the same village was acquired for the same purpose on the same date by the appellants and the Reference made under section 18 of the Act, was contested by the appellants and the compensation was assessed at Rs.1,000 per Marla. The finding recorded in the said judgment could certainly be taken into consideration against the appellants who were bound by the same. The argument that in the said case the appellants could not produce evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the owner, therefore, the said finding should not be taken into consideration, has no force. Apart from this here is sufficient documentary evidence from Exh. A.1 to ExhA. 15 which fully establishes the A case of the respondents that the value of land at the relevant time was not less than Rs.800 per Marla as determined by the trial Court. For example Exh. A. 11 is an award which was delivered by the Land Acquisition Collector, Gujrat through which the compensation for land situated in the same village namely Nawan Rangpur, Tehsil and District Gujrat which had been acquired through notification dated 3‑6‑1968 for construction of passage communication of Telephone Building G.T. Road, Gujrat was assessed at Rs.800 per Marla. According to this at the relevant time i.e. 1968 the value of the land was Rs.800 per Marla, therefore, there is no justification to hold that in the year 1971 the value of land in the same village could be less than that.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to `Aunt Yaksala' (Exh.R3) according to which the average value of land based on sales made in one year from 12‑2‑1970 to 11‑2‑1971 is Rs.380.48 per Marla.

12. After considering the evidence such as evidence ExhA. 4 and ExhA. 11 we do not feel persuaded to place any reliance on this `Aunt Yaksala' because as against the judicial pronouncement by the Court such a document could not be given preference. The award ExhA.l is sufficient to uphold the finding recorded by the trial Court. According to site‑plan ExhA. 1 the land acquired was ideally located in a commercial area which was thickly populated and abuts on the G.T. Road. According to the law declared by the superior Courts relating to acquisition of land, potentiality of land as regards its use in future was also to be taken into consideration while determining the g compensation. Keeping in view the location of land we hold that the compensation determined by the trial Court at the rate of Rs. 800 per Marla was not excessive.

13. The appellants have moved C.M. No. 1327/C‑89 for permission to produce additional evidence. Alongwith this application copies of a number of sale‑deeds have been appended to demonstrate that the land measuring 2 Marlas in the area was sold for Rs.1,000, land measuring 4 Marlas was sold for Rs.1,500, and Rs.2,

000. It is not safe to rely upon the amount of consideration fixed in the sale deeds, for, the general trend among the people had always been to show less amount in the sale deed as consideration in order to avoid expenses of stamp paper and payment of wealth and gain taxes. Apart from this the evidence already produced on the record does not suffer from any lacuna and is sufficient to pronounce judgment and we do not feel any need of additional evidence for doing so The appellants should have produced all the C evidence which they wanted to produce at the relevant time for which opportunity was given to them after framing of issues and recording the evidence of the respondents. It is not the case of the appellants that the said evidence was not allowed to be produced to them by the trial Court. C.M. ( C No. 1327/C‑89 is hereby dismissed.

14. For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, both the appeals have no merits which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1196/L Appeals dismissed.