1. SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J. --- The above-titled appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2009, passed by the Reference Judge Raising Project Mangla Dam. As the above-titled appeals have filed against the same judgment, therefore, these shall be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The precise facts giving rise to the instant appeals are that Muhammad Gulzar (deceased) and Taj Begum filed a reference in the Court of Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur. It was averred that the land of the present appellants measuring 13 Kanals, 14 Marla comprising Khewet Nos. 14, 24 and 26 situated in Village Sangot, Mirpur was acquired by the Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur through award dated 17.05.2007. It was further stated that the suit land was adjacent with the Mirpur City and situated in the area of Municipal Corporation, Mirpur. It is also stated that Collector District Mirpur has already assessed the value of the land situated within the Municipal limits through' Notification and according to the Notification, the price is assessed for residential land Rs. 40,000/- for commercial land Rs. 85,000/- and agricultural land Rs. 1,10,000/- per Marla, while the price of the suit land was assessed as Rs.
3. 32,000/- per Marla. The applicants prayed that the aforesaid award may be set aside and value of the land may be assessee as Rs. 1,00,00,000/- per Marla as per market. Value.
4. After hearing the parties, the learned Reference Judge enhanced the compensation price to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/- Hael, Rs. 6,00,000/- Maira Awal, and Rs. 7,00,000/- for Ghair Mumkin Aabadi, per Kanal alongwith compulsory acquisition charges (hereinafter referred as CAC) @ 15%.
5. WAPDA/appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and decree of Reference Judge Raising Project Mangla Dam, Mirpur dated 18.02.2009, stating therein that the impugned judgment is illegal and against the facts. It is stated that the appellant produced documentary evidence and the Reference Judge while passing the impugned order ignored all the documents and evidence produced by the appellants. The appellants prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Judge, Mirpur may kindly be set aside.
6. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment and decree of learned Reference Judge, Mirpur, the appellants Taj Begum and others in their cross appeal have also challenged the same on the grounds, that the impugned judgment and decree are against the facts and law. It is further contended that the learned Reference Judge has ignored the legal principles of assessing the compensation as per market value and also ignored the kind of land acquired. It is further agitated that the case is of non-reading as well as misreading of evidence and lastly it is prayed that maximum compensation of the land be enhanced to the tune of Rs. One crore (ten million rupees) per Kanal as per prevailing rate of market value alongwith profits and CAC.
7. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
8. Mr. Zakria Bhatti the learned counsel appellants (WAPDA) at the very outset contended that the application for reference was time barred because impugned award was issued on 17.05.2007 and the said application was filed on 05.07.2007, 6 days after the expiry of the limitation. He argued that the Reference Judge has condoned the, limitation illegally. On merits, he argued that the sale-deeds produced for enhancement of compensation, were not registered within one year after the Notification of Section 4. He referred Sections 13 and 23 of the Act and termed the impugned order is nullity in the eyes of law. He relied upon on PLD 2008 Karachi 80. The learned counsel for proforma respondent relied upon the arguments of Mr. Zakaria Bhatti, Advocate.
9. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Afzal the learned counsel for Taj Begum and others respondents/appellants argued at length and reiterated the grounds of facts noted in the memo.
10. Of appeal and contended that the points raised in the appeal may kindly be taken as integral part of his arguments. He further argued that the basic award was issued on 25.05.2007, hence the application for reference was within time. He contended that the notice of award was not served upon the appellants Taj Begum and others.. Moreover, from the date of issuing of copy of award i.e. 23.06.2007, the reference is within time. He alternately 'argued that under Section 18 of Act, the limitation is six months, hence the reference was within time. He repudiated the arguments advanced on behalf of WAPDA and contended that WAPDA has no locus standi to file the appeal.
11. He prayed for dismissal of appeal by WAPDA and requested for enhancement of the compensation. He relied" upon the following case-law:---
(1) 2009 SCR 479;
(2) 1996 SCR 381;
(3) 1996 SCR 132; and
(4) PLD 1996 SC 349.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and case-law referred by the parties.
13. Firstly, the point of limitation is taken, is established on record that neither the (appellants Taj Begum and others were present at the time of announcement of award nor any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to them, Collector also forwarded the reference, treating it, within, time, hence the learned Reference Judge has rightly decided the issue No. 1 of limitation in favour of appellant Taj Begum and others, by resolving that the reference being within six months is within limitation. This view supported by PLJ 1996 SC AJK 349, Muhammad Jan and 4 others v. AJ&K Govt. Through its Chief Secretary and 7 others, which is as under:- ---Ss. 18 and 12---Announcement of award---Appeal against---Limitation---Question of--- Contention that appellants were not present before Collector at the time when award was made but no notice under Section 12 was given to them and in these circumstances limitation shall run from date of knowledge---Application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was moved within a few days from date of knowledge and was in no way barred by them---Collector acted illegally by rejecting application and his order must be quashed with a declaration that it was an order without lawful authority and of no legal effect."
14. Secondly the point of enhancement of compensation as well as the vacation of impugned order of Reference. Judge is concerned. To give finding, it is expedient to seek guidance from Judge made law on the point. For convenience sake, case-law relied upon by the counsel for appellants Taj Begum and others is reproduced hereunder:--
(1) 1996 SCR 132 Faiz Akbar Khan and others v.
15. Azad Government and others v. Khan and others: "It may be pointed that while assessing he market value, the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use for which it was being made at the relevant time but also the use to which it can reasonably be put in future."
(2) 1999 SCR 381 Azad Government and 2 others v . Sahibzada Muhammad Dawood Shah and 3 others: "It may be observed that compensation amount is to be paid according to the market value of the land acquired and not by applying a uniform formula in absence of any evidence which could enable the Court to fix market value of the land acquired. Obviously, the judgment of the High Court whereby the amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. 60,000/- per kanal through a consolidated judgment is not sustainable. The observation of the High Court in para 5 of the impugned judgment that as the land which was acquired was to be used for the construction of the road, the compensation should be paid at uniform rate and not according to the kinds of the land etc. Is violative of principles envisaged in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, according to which the compensation is to be assessed on the market value of the land at the date of the publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is well-accepted principle of law that the market, value means the value of land which a willing purchaser is prepared to pay and a willing seller is prepared to sell. The inclination of vendor to part with his land and urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy or the use to which the land would be put after the acquisition are to be ignored."
(3) Ch. Muhammad Siddique and 3 others v. Azad Government and 4 others, Civil Appeal No. 25/2010, decided on 17.05.2011: "The version of the appellants that the land in question is an agricultural land stood proved by the appellants in their statements and record placed an the file by them which has been further strengthened by a question put by the counsel for the respondents regarding the kind of land,
1. Notification of Collector dated 13.12.2000, through which the valuation of 1 marla Agricultural land was valued at the rate of 1,10,000/- per marla, meaning thereby, that the price of 1 kanal land was valued at Rs. 22 lac per kanal.
2. Sale-deed executed on 7.6.2000, through which 11 marlas of land was sold at a price of 15,42,000/- meaning thereby that the price of one kanal land, according to this sale-deed is 28,090,90/- the sale-deed executed on 04.02.2006, through which 2 kanals and marlas land was sold at the price of Rs. 47,50,000/- and average price of one kanal comes to Rs. 21,86,000/, At the calculation, average price of one kanal land comes to Rs. 23,98,000/- per kanal.
16. Keeping in view the entire evidence and case-law we are of the considered view that the Collector was bound to aware the compensation of land at the rate of Rs. 23,98,000/- (Twenty three lac and ninety-eight thousand) per kanal and the appellants were also entitled to 15% compulsory acquisition charges on the said price.
4. Muhammad Mehrban v. WAPDA and 3 others, Civil Appeal No. 98/2011, decided on 28,02.2013.
17. "10, We are aware of the fact that people in the area have small holdings and are not ready to sell agricultural land and it is in our knowledge that the prices of land in the area are much higher as compared to compensation awarded to the appellant, but a party has to stand on its own footings.
18. It was enjoined upon the appellant to prove its case with the best evidence than can be sale- deeds executed in the adjacent village during the relevant period, but he failed to produce any evidence of sale-deeds. The Collector relied upon the sale-deeds executed or brought on record before him.
19. The valuation table on record notified on 31.12.2002 vide Notification No. 788-91/2002, wherein for Village, Sangot listed at serial No. 8 and the following rates of the land have been fixed for registration purposes:
(a) Residential Rs. 40,000/- per Marla;
(b) Commercial Rs. 85,000/- per Marla;
(c) Agricultural land Rs. 1,10,000/- per Marla.
20. Whereas the land acquired by the respondent for Tubewell in 2002, the price of the land of Village Sangot was fixed as Rs. 32,000/- per Marla and the average price of the sale-deeds on the record comes to Rs. 34,000/- per Marla. Whereas according to valuation table Agricultural land was assessed as Rs. 1,10,000/- was per Marla. In my estimation keeping in view the significance of this national Project and the sacrifices of the people of locality, it will be proper and just to assess the market value according to the average of all these above-quoted events/transaction, sale-deeds which pertains to private sector, public sector, i.e. Acquisition of land for Tubewell and the last one the valuation table (32000+34000+110000) the average of all these comes to Rs. 58,667/- per Marla say Rs. 11,73,340/- per Kanal alongwith 15% CAC (Rs. 78,220/- Total Rs. 12,51,462/- per Kanal. (Twelve lacs fifty-one thousand four hundred sixty-two only).
21. Now, keeping in view the kind of land detailed market value is calculated as under:---
1. Land measuring 12 kanals, 14 marlas having Khewet No. 14, 24 and 26 situated at Village Sangot, Tehsil Mirpur (Kind of land "Hael")
2. For kind of land (Maira awal)
3. For kind of land (Ghair Mumkin)
22. Rs. 1251462/- per Kanal (including 15% CAC)
23. Rs. 1151462/- (including 15% CAC)
24. Rs. 1251462/- per kanal (including 15% CAC)
25. The appeal No. 572/2005, dated 14.05.2009 titled WAPDA v. Taj Begum and others merits no consideration by this Court being a case of no evidence. Hence it is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. .