The supra titled both the. appeals have been filed against the judgment of District Judge Rawalakot dated 19.09.2008, through which the reference filed by the appellant Kh. Ali Muhammad was accepted to the extent of compensation of the acquired land, which was enhanced as Rs.
5,00,000/- per kanal along-with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Both the appeals have to be decided through a single judgment.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the land measuring 03 Kanals and 13 Marlas Survey No. 522 (old) situated at Rawalakot was awarded for construction of road on 21.04.1986 under award No. 931-36/SQ/86. The compensation of the awarded land was assessed as Rs.
1,21,727/- in total.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the assessed amount, the appellant/owner Kh. Ali Muhammad filed a reference before District Judge Rawalakot through Collector Land Acquisition on 24.12.2004 (after 18 years and 08 months approx. of issuance of award). It was stated in the reference that the appellant/owner was not aware of the award, as he was not issued any notice regarding acquisition of the land. When the appellant came to know about the said award, he filed the instant reference. It was further stated that the Collector awarded the said land at a very low compensation and he did not assess the price according to the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition. The appellant Kh. Ali Muhammad prayed that the compensation be determined as Rs. 5,00,000/- per kanal alongwith 15% as compulsory acquisition charges.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge Rawalakot accepted the reference enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- per kanal plus 15% as compulsory acquisition charges. Feeling dissatisfied, both the parties Kh. Ali Muhammad owner of the awarded land and AJ&K Government including Collector Land Acquisition & others filed counter appeals before this Court. The appellant Kh. Ali Muhammad prayed, to enhance the compensation and to pay interest of the compensation up to date. The counter appellant Azad Govt. & others prayed to set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Rawalakot and stated that the said reference was filed hopelessly time barred.
5. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, Sardar Muhammad Suleman Khan Advocate the learned counsel for the appellant Kh. Ali Muhammad argued that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs, 5,00,000/- per kanal, which was not determined by the Collector as well as by the learned District Judge. The acquired land is situated in centre of Rawalakot city. Appellant has produced his oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his version. The attested copies of the sale-deeds executed regarding the adjacent locality have been appended to prove the market value of the acquired land. Moreover, the acquired land has got future potential value, which should be considered while' determining the compensation. The learned counsel further stated that period of limitation shall start from the date when the appellant came to know about the acquisition. The counter appellants are not eligible to file any appeal. The learned District Judge Rawalakot was bound to add interest of the compensation money in the judgment. The learned counsel requested to enhance the compensation alongwith compulsory acquisition charges and to add interest on the compensation money and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
2005 SCR 09 2006 SCMR 602 2008 SCM R 1280 PLD 2008 SC 400 PLJ 2009 AJ&K 08 2009 MLD 1380
6. While controverting Sardar Muhammad Resham Khan, the learned Additional Advocate General contended in brief and stated that the Collector Land Acquisition assessed the just, proper and adequate compensation of the acquired land in accordance with the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition. The learned District Judge Rawalakot did not record his findings in accordance with the oral and documentary evidence available on record. There was no justification to enhance the compensation. Moreover, the reference filed by the owner of the awarded land was filed after 18 years and 08 months approximately, which was hopelessly time barred. The learned Additional Advocate General requested to set-aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge 'Rawalakot dated 19.09.2008 and to dismiss the appeal filed by the owner of the acquired land.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the precedents referred minutely. The following points have to be resolved in the instant appeals in accordance with the version of the parties and law of the land.
(i) Whether the reference was filed within the prescribed period of limitation?
(ii) Whether the compensation was assessed and determined properly? and
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get interest on the compensation money?
The appellant Kh. Ali Muhammad submitted his reference before Collector Land Acquisition on 23.12.2004, which was forwarded by the collector to District Judge Rawalakot on 24.12,2004. It was stated in the reference that the appellant was not aware of the issuance of award of his land. He was not issued any notice regarding acquisition of the land.
As soon he came to know about the award, he filed the reference under hand. He submitted an application to get attested copy of award before filing the said reference, but it was reported that the said record was destroyed due to a fire incident. So, it was stated by the appellant that the reference has been filed within time from the date of his knowledge regarding the said award. The appellant did not file any separate application for condonation of the period of limitation. It is a settled principle of law that one must submit an application to condone the period of limitation if any pleading has been submitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation. One should mention the exact date on which he came to know that collector has issue award. It is an admitted fact that the appellant Kh. Ali Muhammad filed his reference after 18 years and 08 months of issuance of award by the collector. The record reveals that the appellant was not issued any notice regarding the acquisition and award. So, the limitation for filing the reference shall be 06 months, which shall be counted from the date of collector's award irrespective of fact whether the appellant was informed of it or not? This principle has been laid down in a case titled as "Govt. of Pakistan and another Vs. Syed Ghulam Haider Shah and 05 others (2007 SCR 175)". in the last portion of para 05 of the said judgment. Moreover, the said reference was declared time barred by the collector vide his order recorded on the said reference dated 23.12.2004. The land was acquired for construction of a road. The said road, admittedly has been constructed over the said land and general public is utilizing the said road since long. The appellant Kh. All Muhammad kept silent for more than 18 years and thereafter he filed the said reference, which was hopelessly time barred. Such like long period cannot be condoned in any case.
9. As far the compensation of the acquired land was concerned, the collector determined the compensation for the land measuring 03 Kanals and 13 Marlas as Rs. 1,21727/- in total and the appellant Kh. Ali Muhammad demanded the compensation as Rs. 5,00,000/- per kanal. The learned' District Judge accepted the version of the appellant and enhanced the compensation as Rs, 5,00,000/- per kanal alongwith compulsory acquisition charges. The learned District Judge relied upon two sale-deeds Exh.PA and PB. The sale-deed Exh.PA was executed by Muhammad Afraz Khan and others favour of Ameer Afzal Khan on 15.12.2004, while the sale-deed Exh.PB was executed by Muhammad Rashid Khan in favour of Muhammad Riaz Khan on 14.05.2005. These sale-deeds were executed after more than 18 years of acquisition of the land under discussion. The appellant did not place any sale-deed in accordance with the provisions of law and has placed the sale-deeds, which were executed after a long time of acquisition of the land. These sale-deeds cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence in favour of version of the appellant.
Having in view the circumstances discussed above, no need is required to record any opinion regarding interest on the compensation money. As reference was filed by the appellant Kh. Ali Muhammad after a long time of acquisition which was, of course hopelessly time barred. The findings of the learned District Judge regarding enhancement of compensation are not sustainable at all. So, the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Rawalakot dated 19.09.2008 is hereby set-aside while accepting the appeal filed by the Azad Govt. and others and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant Kh. All Muhammad, with no order as to costs.