' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment and decree, dated 20-11-2000 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan as Referee Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby the said Court while reversing the findings of Land Acquisition Collector determining the market value of the disputed property at the rate of Rs,5247 per acre cultivatable land and Rs,2623.50 for uncultivatable land, enhanced the price to Rs,33,00 per acre.
2. The facts briefly stated are that land measuring 20 kanals, lmarlas situated in village Jaffarpur Tehsil Sadiqabad District Rahim Yar Khan owned by the respondents was acquired for the purposes of construction of drainage 3-R/MD-2 vide Notification No,LAC/RYK/ 7043 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, issued on 9-12-1985. The Land Acquisition Collector made Award on 11- 1-1987 whereby respondents were allowed compensation under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act determining the price of the property at the rate of Rs,5247 per acre for cultivatable land and Rs,2623.50 for un-cultivatable land. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation allowed by the Collector, respondents prayed for a Reference in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and on receipt of the Reference the learned Senior Civil Judge after framing the following issues put the parties at trial:-- Issues:--
(1) Whether the amount of compensation assessed by the respondents were inadequate and not fair, if so, whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs,33,000 per acre along with other incidental charges? OPP
(2) Where the measurement of the property acquired by the respondents incorrect, if so, what is its effect? OPP
(3) Relief.
3. The respondents in support of their plea produced Dilnawaz Naib, Office of the Qanoongo AW-1, Muhammad Hussain son of Ali Gohar Lamberdar A.W.2 whereas Muhammad Hussain one of the respondents appeared as A.W.3 and closed their evidence by tendering documents Exh.A-1 to Exh.A-4. On the other hand, appellant produced Muhammad Shafi Naib Tehsildar R.W.1 and by tendering documents Exh.R-1 to Exh.R-3 and Exh.D-3 to 12 closed his evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Senior Civil Judge vide judgment, dated 20-11-2000 answered Issue No,1 in favour of the respondents and held them entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs,33,000 per acre along with other incidental charges. The appellant has challenged the above-mentioned findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge through this appeal.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that learned Senor Civil Judge while fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs,33,000 per acre has mainly relied upon the sale-deed, Exh.A-1 registered on 16-4-1986, whereas, in terms of Rule 10(1)(iii)(c) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, the average market price of similar kind of land similarly located on the basis of the price prevalent of during the period of twelve months preceding the date of publication of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, has to be kept in view and since in the present case Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 9-12-1985, therefore, the market price of similar kind land similarly located prevalent during 10-12-1984 to 9-12-1985 could only be considered and not the price prevalent subsequent to the Notification, dated 9-12-1985, hence, the learned Senior Civil Judge fell into legal error by placing reliance on Exh.A-1 (dated 16-4-1986) while determining the rate of compensation.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has forcefully supported the findings of the learned Trial Court by contending that learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly determined the compensation as the same was wrongly determined by the Land Acquisition Collector at the instance of the appellant. To support his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the case "Federation of Pakistan v. Shaukat Ali" (PLD 1999 SC 1026).
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the entire evidence and also appraised the evidence available before us.
7. It is an established principle of law that in law acquisition cases it is the objector who has to disprove the determination by the land Acquisition Collector, by producing convincing and legal evidence. As mentioned above per rule 10(1)(iii)(c) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 the relevant period while determining the market value would be the one prevalent during one year preceding to the Notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act and in this case the said Notification was issued on 9-12-1985, whereas, sale-deed Exh.A-1 mainly relied upon by the learned Senior Civil Judge while basing his findings on issue No,1 was registered on 16-4-1986, hence the same was neither admissible nor could be used by the learned Senior Civil Judge while deciding the said issue. We have, therefore, no option but to exclude the said evidence from consideration.
Apart from Exh.A-1 the respondents have also produced certified copies of Award No,257, dated 17- 1-1988 (Exh.A-2) and Award No,66,, dated 9-6-1990 (Exh.A-3) which though relate to the same District yet the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the said case was also issued subsequent to the similar Notification issued in this case, hence, the same can also be not taken into consideration in view of the bar contained in the above rule. After exclusion of Exh.A-2 and Exh.A-3, the only evidence left in the field is the judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, dated 3-7-1991 (Exh.A.4) recorded in application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act titled "Bashir Ahmad and three others v. Province of Punjab and others" relating to acquisition" of land in the year, 1985 and determining price of the similar kind of landsimilarly located at the rate of Rs,28,667 per acre and as the appellant has not produced any cogent evidence either to rebut Exh.A/4 or to show that the price so determined through Exh.A-4 is exorbitant or violative of conditions enumerated in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, hence we have no option but to modify the findings of learned Senior Civil Judge on issues No,1 by reducing the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs,28667 per acre in the light of Exh.A/1.
8. The upshot of above discussion is that this appeal is partly allowed, the findings of learned Senior Civil Judge on Issue No,1 are modified and the respondents are declared entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs,28,667 per acre along with compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15% in terms of section 23, subsection (2) and 8% interest from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of payment of enhanced amount, as required by section 28 of the said Act.