' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.-We propose to dispose of this R. F. A. And R. E A. No, 111/1974, as well as objection Petitions Nos. 1, 2 and 12 of 1975, by this single judgment, as they arise from the same transaction and the award in all these cases given by the Acquisition Collector is also the same and although the impugned judgments of the learned Additional District Judge are separate in each case, yet same relief has been granted by him to the Objectors/ Appellants (hereinafter called Objectors).
2. The facts forming the background of the case are that vide Notification No, 16318/Revenue, dated 30-4-1968, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government acquired the entire estate of village Sathana, Haripur for the purpose of Turbela Dam Project. After observing the usual formalities the Collector pronounced a common award No, 83/C on 30-10-1972, by which he fixed the rates of compensation in respect of the various kinds of land for payment to the Land owners.
The land owners were not satisfied with the award of Collector and preferred objection petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which the Collector referred to the Additional District Judge, Haripur for disposal. The learned Additional District Judge after taking into consideration the documentary as well as oral evidence in the case enhanced and fixed the following rates of compensation with respect to the lands of the land owners:-
(i) Chah and abi @ Rs, 2500, per kanal.
(ii) Bari @ Rs, 1250, per kanal.
(iii) Maira @ Rs, 625, per kanal.
(iv) Rakkar and Kelsi @ Rs, 416, per kanal.
(v) Banana, Banjar, Dahka Charagh @ Rs, 208, per kanal.
(vi) Ghairmumkin @ Rs, 104, per kanal ; and
(vii) Abadi @ Rs, 1250, per kanal.
3. Against this judgment the Government filed appeal, but later on it was withdrawn. Whilst Shah Ibrahim Objector has filed R. F. A. No, 101/74 and other objectors have filed objection petitions in this Court in which it is prayed that as the rates of compensation awarded to them by the learned Additional District Judge have not been reasonably enhanced, the same may be appropriately enhanced by this Court. It may be mentioned that in view of the withdrawal of the appeal by the Government, the objection petitions of the objectors will legally remain unaffected and the same will have to be decided on merit.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the Government supported the impugned judgments of the learned Additional District Judge and contended that he has reasonably fixed the rates of compensation in favour of the landlords on the basis of the evidence on record and no exception can be taken against the same. As against it the learned counsel for the objectors contended that the learned Additional District Judge while determining the rates of compensation has not applied any yardstick, but his determination is the product of his imagination. He therefore urged that this Court may take into consideration the evidence on record and property enhance the rates of compensation in favour of the objectors.
5. We would have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, but the question of the rates of compensation in a case of this nature stands resolved by a D. B. Judgment of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector II, Tarbela Dam, Resettlement Organization WAPDA and 2 others v. Haji Hakeem and 41 others (1). In that case exactly a similar question had been raised and their Lordships after having discussed the evidence in the case as well as the legal position fixed the following rates of compensation for payment to the landlords:- Rs, ' Chahi, Abbi 2872, per kanal ' Bari ... 1436, per kanal ' Matra 41 718, per kanal ' Rakkar-Kelsi . 478, per kanal ' Hanjar 239, per kanal ' Ghairmumkin 120, per kanal ' Abadi 1436, per kanal
6. It may be noted that the acquired land in the reported case is situated' in village Kia. Whilst in the present case the acquired land is situated in the area of village Sathana. Both these villages are adjacent to each other. The evidence on record will show that the lands of both the villages are of the same quality and character and no distinction or difference can be drawn between the same.
This position is not controverted before us. Therefore, it will be just and equitable to adopt the rates of compensation in the present case as adopted in the above reported case. It may be observed that the above reported case was pending in this Court when the impugned judgments in the present case were delivered by the learned Additional District Judge. If the judgment in the above reported case had already been delivered, surely the learned Additional District Judge would have adopted the rates of compensation in the present case in line with the rates given to the landowners by their Lordships in the above reported case.
7. The learned counsel for the Government called attention to the following observations of their Lordships appearing at page 59 of the report:- "The mutations recorded in Exh.
0. W. 1/2 were not required to be taken into consideration for the purposes of ascertaining the market-value of the land unless, of course, some of the parties to these transactions were produced in evidence to establish their bona fides."
8. Taking advantage of these observations, the learned counsel urged that although the objectors placed on the record of this case certain sale- (1) PLD 1976 Pesh. 50 mutations in the form of Exh.
OW1/2 but as they failed to produce as witnesses the parties to the sale-transactions in the said Exh. OW1/2, they cannot come forward to claim enhanced rates of compensation on the basis of the said sale mutations. This contention would appear to be misplaced, as we have no occasion to go into the sale mutations in Exh. OW1/2 in view of the fact that we have already held that the rates of compensation given to the land owners for their acquired land in village Kiya would be the just and fair rates of compensation to be given in the present case to the objectors whose lands situated in village Sathana and the land situated in village Kia have been characterized of the same, quality and character beyond question. All the same, in our humble opinion, the above observations of their Lordships would appear to be just passing remarks for the decision of the case before them. In other words by making these observations their lordships cannot be said to have laid down a rule that if in a given case a party relies upon certain sale mutation, then unless the parties to the sale transaction are produced by him in support of his claim, his case will be thrown out as without any substance and the other evidence, even if highly plausible, cannot be given worth and weight. It may be observed that it is not always correct to contend that just because in a given case a party has relied upon certain sale mutation but he h failed to produce as witnesses the parties to the sale transaction, his case will be turned down as incredible even if he is able to establish the bona fide of his claim by other cogent and satisfactory evidence. Similar view of the matter will be against the norms of prudence and rationality and will strike at the very root of the principle of safe dispensation of justice.
9. The result is that these objection-petitions/first appeals are allowed with this modification that the rates of compensation allowed to the landowners in the above reported case as reproduced in para. 5 of this judgment are allowed to the landowners/objectors in the present case and they will also be paid costs of these proceedings by the respondents.