CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. --- Through this consolidated judgment, we intend to dispose of RFA No. 168/2002 and RFA No. 169/2002 as both these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment dated 15.3.2002, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock who dismissed the references under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation of land acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Attack for Ghazi Barotha Power Project.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the land measuring 48 kanals, 9 marlas, owned by appellants of RFA No. 168/2002 and 34 kanals, 4 marlas, owned by appellants of RFA No. 169/2002, fully described in respective appeals was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Attock for construction of Ghazi Barotha Power Project through various awards. After notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act a final notification under Section 17(4) and Section 6 was published in the official Gazette. The appellants after receiving compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per kanal filed references for enhancement of the compensation which were dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence these RFAs.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants inter Oa contends that though the appellants have received compensation under protest but the Land Acquisition Collector did not consider the potential and market value of the land. One year average price has not been assessed properly. There are mines and minerals underneath acquired land and the appellants had been earning handsome amount from the excavation of gravels and sand from the acquired land but while announcing the above award, these facts were not considered by the Land Acquisition Collector. Further contends that a number of other lands were acquired by various agencies and the owners of those lands were paid much higher prices than those paid to the appellants.
Learned counsel has particularly referred the awards Nos. 3, 5, 6, 258, which according to learned appellants' counsel, were announced in the year 1996 and owners of those lands were given much higher prices than those paid to the appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that there are mettled road passing through the acquired land. There were trees etc. In the lands but the appellants were not given the proper compensation. These facts were also ignored by learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock while deciding reference of the appellants filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, the appeals be accepted, the impugned judgment be set aside and the compensation of acquired land be enhanced to Rs. 70,000/-per kanal.
5. On the contrary, learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State submits that the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation on the basis of annual average price. Further contends that the category of acquired land was maira and the appellants have miserably failed to produce any evidence in support of their assertions that there were mines underneath the acquired land or at least there were gravels or sand and the appellants used to excavate those mines. Learned Law Officer further submits that a letter from an official who has not even visited the spot neither carries any weight nor has any nexus with the acquisition of the land in question.
He avers that any oral statement contrary to the record has no relevance in the eye of law, therefore, both these RFAs are liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with their able assistance.
7. Perusal of record highlights that right from the very beginning when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued, the appellants had the knowledge that their lands were likely to be acquired. Afterwards, the Land Acquisition Collector issued final notification under Section 17(4) and Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act within the knowledge of the appellants. The appellants have claimed that the compensation be enhanced, as owners of other lands, whose lands were acquired by various agencies, were awarded much higher prices. In this context, the appellants have referred Exh.P11 to Exh.P22 but the appellants cannot derive any benefit out of these documents as all these awards neither pertain to the same revenue estate nor they were announced during the period in which the awards under challenge in these RFAs were pronounced.
8. Perusal of record shows that the respondents acquired big chunk of land measuring thousands of kanals. Maximum owners have received bulk of compensation without protest. There is no evidence on record that the remaining owners were compelled or forced to accept bulk of compensation without protest. Further, price of small piece of land cannot form basis of market value of big tracks of land. If some pieces of land is sold for a higher price due to its peculiar location, it does not mean that all the lands in the same vicinity must also be assessed at the same rate. Such claimant is required to prove that the acquired land can also be put to the same use but in the instant case, the appellants have failed to prove their claim with cogent evidence.
9. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellants was repeatedly, asked to point out any documentary evidence showing that there were mines or minerals underneath their acquired land or at least there were gravels or sand which the appellants used to extract and sold in the open market but the learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any such documentary evidence. Instead, it fully stands established from the record that the category of acquired land was maira.
10. Ex.R1 is a copy of one year average price prepared by the Patwari who assessed Rs. 7,401.72 per kanal whereas the appellants were paid Rs. 20,000/- per kanal for maira category of land. Though learned counsel for the appellants has argued the matter at a considerable length, but he has failed to point out any evidence in support of his contention that Rs. 20,000/- per kanal was inadequate price. Learned counsel for the appellants has also failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for interference by this Court.
11. For what has been discussed above, the RFAs in hand are devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.