' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.---This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 5-5- 1993 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby reference made to it under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also seen the record with their assistance.
3. The relevant facts are that total land measuring 481 Kanals 17 Marlas including the appellant's land measuring 44 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in village Charrar, Tehsil and District Lahore, was acquired for defence purposes by the Central Government for the establishment of Engineering Depot No,l. Notification under section 4 of the aforesaid Act was issued on 13-2-1983, the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 2-10-1986 and the appellant was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs,75000 per Kanal as against the claim of the appellant of Rs,2/3 lac per Kanal. Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was, therefore, filed claiming the enhancement of compensation to Rs,3,00,000 per Kanal with interest till the realization of the compensation, which was contested by the opposite party through written reply and it was pleaded that the land was acquired for defence purposes by the Central Government and such reference cannot proceed due to the non-jointer of necessary party. It was further alleged that no documentary evidence was placed before the Land Acquisition Collector for proving/ establishing the claim.
4. The learned trial Court framed the following necessary issues.
Issues.
(1) Whether the reference is bad due to non-jointer of necessary parties? OPR.
(2) Whether the petitioner has got no locus standi and cause of action to file this reference? OPR.
(3) Whether the amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate? If so, what should be the proper assessm ent of the land acquired? OPA.
(4) Relief.
5. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence produced by the parties, heard the arguments of their learned counsel and, as mentioned above, vide its judgment and decree, dated 5-5-1993 dismissed the reference.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time of its acquisition, the land in question was urban in character, it is adjacent to the Defence Society and the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned Referee Court failed to take into consideration its prospective value and potential, the oral evidence produced by the appellant has proved the claim of the appellant and the entire evidence produced by the respondents is silent in record to the market value of the land at the time of its acquisition and that while the notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 13-2-1983 the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector more than two years and nine months thereafter but the compensation was determined by the Collector on the basis of average sale price of one year prevailing immediately before the issuance of notification under section 4 and the enhancement of the market value during this period, was ignored and was not taken into consideration and the learned Referee Court also committed the same error and did not take into consideration the increase in the market value between the period when the notification under section 4 was issued and the announcement of award. The learned counsel in support of his contentions has placed reliance on Nisar Ahmad Khan and others v. Collector, Land Acquisition, Sawabi and others PLD 2002 SC 25, Muhammad Saeed and others v.
Collector, Land Acquisition and others 2002 SCM R 407 and Abbotabad Land Acquisition and others v. Haji Ali Asghar Khan and others 1985 SCM R 767.
7. The learned Deputy Attorney General, while opposing the appeal, has submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector while determining the market value of the acquired land, took into consideration all the relevant factors and gave cogent reasons for determining the compensation at the rate of Rs,75000 per Kanal, similarly the Referee Court discussed the entire evidence produced by the parties and correctly came to the conclusion that the reference had no merit, the onus of issue No,3 of the alleged inadequacy of the compensation was on the appellant, who failed to discharge the same as the appellant merely produced oral evidence and did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the market value of the land in dispute at the time of its acquisition was Rs,3,00,000 per Kanal and the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the forums below, are based on record, evidence and cogent reasons. It has also been argued that the award in dispute, dated 2-10-1986 was assailed by many other land, owners and various orders passed by the Referee Court were assailed before this Court in R.F.As. Nos.205 of 1991 and 462 of 1999 and both the aforesaid appeals filed by the Government were allowed and the enhancement of compensation ordered by the Referee Court at the rate of Rs,2,10,000 per Kanal (subject matter of R.F.A No,205/1991) and Rs,1,00,000 per Kanal (subject matter of R.F.A No,462/1999) were set aside and the original award at the rate of Rs,75000 made by the Land Acquisition Collector was upheld and although the said judgments are not binding on this Bench but the same have persuasive value as the award in questin is the same and the consistency also demands that the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector should be upheld.
8. The appellant, in support of his claim has produced only oral evidence, which has been discussed in detail by the learned Referee Court. A.W.1, Salah-udDin, prepared site plan (Exh.A.1). He has admitted in the cross-examination that he is not qualified draftsman. He has not stated anything about the market value of the land in dispute. A.W.2, Abdul Majeed, Clerk of the Land Acquisition Collector, has also not said anything about the market value of the land in dispute.
A.W.3, Muhammad Sharif Bajwa, Girdawar Halqa, deposed about the demarcation and did not say anything about the market value of the land acquired. The learned trial Court has, therefore, correctly held that the evidence of these witnesses is of no avail to the appellant. The appellant's star witness Amir Ali (P.W.4), a Property Dealer, stated that the market value of the land in dispute in the year 1982 was Rs,3,00,000 per Kanal and he also vaguely referred to an agreement to sell for Rs,2,00,000 per Kanal but did not give particulars of the said document. He failed to explain that how the value of the land in dispute in the year 1982 was Rs,3,00,000 per Kanal. The learned trial Court, therefore, correctly did not give any credit to the statement of this witness. P.W.5, Muhammad Saeed, deposed that 10 years before making the statement before the Court (11-2- 1992), he had purchased the land at the rate of Rs,2,00,000 per Kanal in Mauza Charrar. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the sale was not effected through any registered sale-deed.
He failed to produce any document. The learned trial Court correctly held that the statement of this witness was un-corroborative to the claim of the appellant. P.W.6, Partab Javed Patwari Halqa Bheekaywal, stated that in the year 1983, the market value of the land acquired was Rs,2/2-1/2 lacs per Kanal. During cross-examination, he admitted that price mentioned by him was not entered in any register. He did not produce any document in support of his deposition. P.W.7. Tarah Masih Naib Tehsildar of Society Lahore, has stated that the land in question is situated on the northern side of the society's land and in 1983, the society had purchased lands at the rate of Rs,24000 per Kanal.
The statement of this' witness is neither here nor there. He has failed to mention the market price of the land in dispute and has also not produced any document. P. W.8, Riaz Ahrnad Faizi, stated that the document Exh.P.W.8/1 was written by him and in the cross-examination, he stated that he did not know as to whether there was any sale-deed or not. Exh.P.W.8/1 is the copy of an agreement to sell. It is not a sale-deed. It is not evidence of the market value of the land in dispute. P,W.9, Muhammad Latif, Special Attorney of the appellant, stated that the market value of the land in question at the time of its acquisition was not less than of Rs,3,00,000 per Kanal. He also failed to produce any documentary evidence to support the claim.
9. The above mentioned shows that the appellant miserably failed to prove that the price of the land in question at the time of its acquisition was Rs,3,00,000 per D Kanal. It is further held that there is no evidence on record, produced by ythe appellant, showing the market value of the land in question, at the time of the announcement of the award.
10. On the other hand, respondents have produced D.W.1, Naseer Ahmad, Clerk, Land Acquisition Collector, who produced index of average sale price as Exh.D.W.1/1-2, which shows that the market value of the land in dispute was Rs,9000 per Kanal, whereas the. District Collector had fixed the market value (Exh.D.W.l/3) at the rate of Rs,25000 per Kanal but the Board of Revenue vide its letter/decision (Exh.D.W.1/4) approved the market value at the rate of Rs,75000 per Kanal. D.W.2, Nazir Ahmad, Deputy Military Estate Officer, Lahore, stated that as per the index of the average sale price, the value of the land in question was Rs,9000 per Kanal but the Board of Revenue had fixed the value at the rate of Rs,75000 per Kanal and the same value was fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector at the time of the announcement of the award, which was more than the actual value.
D.W.3, Wasi Rehman, Record Keeper, Registration Branch, Lahore Cantt, produced documents (Exh.D.W.3/1 and Exh.D.W3/2), which are copies of the registered sale-deeds, dated 17-9-1988 showing sales of land measuring 9 Kanals 10 Marlas for Rs,3,50,000 and 2 Kanals for Rs,50,000 situated in village Keer Khurd, Tehsil and District Lahore Cantt. D.W.4, Tahir Mahmood, from the office of M.E.O., Lahore did not say anything about the market value of the land in dispute.
11. Although the appellant has failed to produce any convincing evidence in support of his claim that at the time of acquisition of the land in question, its market value was Rs,3,00,000 per Kanal, we have, on our own, gone through the award announced by the Land , Acquisition Collector (Exh.P.9) to see as to whether the compensation announced by him was adequate or not. We find that the Land Acquisition Collector gave cogent reasons for determining the compensation at the rate of Rs,75,000 per Kanal. The land owners were given ample opportunity to produce evidence in support of their claims but they did not produce any oral or documentary evidence before the Land Acquisition Collector to support their claims. The Collector, Lahore District, determined the market price at the rate of Rs,9000 per Kanal. This determination was made on the basis of index of average sale price of sale transaction effected in the locality, one year prior to the issuance notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the period from 9-2-1982 to 9-2- 1983. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) alter visiting the site recommended the mar value at the rate of Rs,15000 per Kanal thereafter, the Commissioner recommended to the Government, the market price at rate of Rs,25000 per Kanal and the Bo of Revenue, Punjab, under para 12 of Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, approved the estimated cost at the rate of Rs,75( per Kanal including 15% compulsory acquisition charges in respect of 1; acquired for Engineering Depot No Charrar, Lahore Cantt. The Land Acquisition Collector after considering the relevant factors determined the mar price at the rate of Rs,75000 per Kanal the appellant has failed to prove that same was inadequate.
12. We may also mention here that previously also in R.F.As Nos.205/1991 and 462/1999, the market value as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector through the award in question, was upheld by this Court and the enhancement in the compensation made by the Referee Court were set aside and the rule of consistency demands that the same award be upheld in this case as well.
Therefore, on this ground also this appeal has no merit especially when no evidence was produced to show any distinguishing features of the appellant's land from the ones, which were subject matter of the aforesaid appeals.
13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellant failed to discharge the onus placed on him for proving that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate. We, therefore, find ho merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.