' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the judgment and decree dated 26-9-2001, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran, whereby the application/reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the respondent for enhancement of the amount of award, passed by Land Acquisition Collector, Multan, was accepted.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent owned land measuring 35 Kanals, 11 Marlas, situated at Mouza Danwaran, Tehsil and District Lodhran, which was acquired for the purpose of constructing a Pacca Road by the Highway Department, Multan. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 18-1-1997 and subsequently notification under sections 17(4) and 6 were issued on 2-1-1999 and 6-1-1999 respectively in respect of 122 acres, 5 Kanals and 13 Marlas of land which included the land of the respondent. The Land Acquisition Collector, Highway Department, Multan, fixed Rs,3,25,411.96 as cost of the land and also allowed 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The respondent dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him vide this award, proceeded to file a petition/reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Referee Court/learned Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran, where the cost of land was enhanced from Rs,3,25,411.46 per acre to Rs,4,50,000 per acre, vide judgment and decree dated 26- 9-2001. Apart from the above 15% compulsory acquisition charges on the above amount Rs,50,000 as compensation and lease money from 1981 to 1998 were also given. Aggrieved of this enhancement made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran, the Province of Punjab has filed the instant Regular First Appeal, which is being disposed of by this judgment.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the appeal was barred by limitation and there was a delay of 51 days in filing this appeal and an application for the condonation of delay, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, had been filed by the appellant which was to be disposed of before arguing the main appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this appeal was filed within limitation period but twice objections were raised and on both the occasions, no notice was received by them from the office in this regard. Further submitted that C.M. No,2 of 2005 was filed for condonation of delay only due to the requirement of office and if this Court arrived at a conclusion that the appeal was barred by limitation, then sufficient grounds existed for the condonation of the delay.
5. The judgment was announced on 26-9-2001, an application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment was moved on 27-9-2001, which was prepared on 8-12-2001 and received on 10-12-2001.
The appeal was filed on 22-12-2001, which was within limitation period. However, objections were raised by the office, which were removed and then again filed. Subsequently, again objections were raised and finally, it was on 28-2-2002 that the appeal was again filed.
6. Perusal of the above shows that initially the appeal was filed within limitation period and the record does not show that any notice was sent to the appellant for the removal of the objections.
The office raised objections twice and on each time, no notice was sent to the appellants by the office in this regard. Under the circumstances, as the appeal was filed within limitation period, therefore, we are of the considered view that the appeal is not barred by limitation. Respectfully relying upon Mst. Sabiran Bibi v. Ahmad Khan 2000 SCM R 847, we hold that the appeal is within limitation period, the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is disallowed and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
7. In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant criticized the impugned judgment and decree and also submitted that the increase in the cost of the land was illegal as average sale price of that area was Rs,3,25,411.96, which had been rightly awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent while refuting the contentions of the appellants submitted that the land of the same Mouza was acquired on 7-1-1999 in which Rs,4,50,000 per acre was awarded as compensation for the land and supported the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran.
9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the respondent has been minutely perused. In para. 5(i) of the petition, it has been specifically mentioned that in Mouza Danwaran, Tehsil and District Lodhran, land measuring 17 acres 4 Kanals, 18 Marlas was acquired at the rate of Rs,4,50,000 per acre. It has been further mentioned that the land, which is now being acquired, measuring 4 acres, 2 Kanals, 18 Marlas, was also "Nul Nehri" and identical to the land, which was acquired at the rate of Rs,4,50,000 per acre. It was specifically mentioned in the petition that it amounted to discrimination and thus, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
197. In reply to para. 5(i) filed by the present appellant, it was admitted that Rs,4,50,000 per acre was awarded in Award No,324/99, dated 26-6- 1999, in favour of Ghulam Yasin. However, the reply is silent to the assertion made by the present appellant that the land of the appellant which has been acquired is also "Nul Nehri" and identical to the one, which has been awarded Rs,4,50,000. This specific plea has not been denied by the appellant. Only thing that has been submitted is that the Award No,327/99, dated 26-6-1999 has been prepared according to the assessment made by the Board of Revenue.
11. As the appellant has not refuted or denied the assertion made by the respondent that the land is also of the same kind, therefore, this aspect is deemed to have been admitted by the appellant.
Thus, a fact which have been admitted need not to have been proved. In this regard, respectfully reliance is placed upon Inam Naqshband v. Haji Sheikh Ijaz Ahmad PLD 1995 SC 314. Nevertheless, the respondent appearing as A.W.1 in his statement also stated that in Mouza Danwaran, Tehsil and District Lodhran, cost of land of 4 acres, 2 Kanals, 18 Marlas has been paid at Rs,4,50,000 per acre and he has maintained that his land was even better than this land. He has further submitted that the market value of the land of the adjoining Mouza is Rs,7,33,308 per acre. In his cross- examination, the appellant could not improve their case. R.W.1 and R.W.2 while appearing on behalf of the appellant were unable to contradict the statement of the respondent and prove their case.
12. We are, therefore, of the view that it is a clear case of discrimination. The rights guaranteed to the respondent under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have been violated. The respondent is entitled to get Rs,4,50,000 per acre as compensation for the cost of land along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. No cogent reasons have been shown for setting aside the compensation of Rs,50,000 and also for the respondent's entitlement to lease money from 1981 to 1998 but if any payment for this period has already been given to him, the same shall be deducted.
13. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 26-9-2001 is upheld subject to the condition that in case any lease money has been paid from 1981 to 1998, the same shall not be given.
14. In the light of what has been discussed above, this appeal fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.