Shahid Waheed, J.--This judgment will govern RFA No, 176/2011 and RFA 284/2011 as the same have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. RFA No, 176/2011 has been filed by a land owner, Muhammad Ameen Shahid (hereinafter called the appellant) for the enhancement of compensation of acquired land whereas RFA No, 284/2011 has been filed by the Board of Revenue Punjab and three others (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) for maintaining the compensation assessed by the land Acquisition Collector in the award dated 5.11.2007.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 02.06.2005, the District Officer (Revenue)/District Collector, Multan issued Notification No, 171-DOR/LAC, published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 24.8.2005, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisitions of land measuring 401 Kanals-14 Marlas situated in Mauza Dera Muhammdi and Mauza Samurana, Tehsil Multan City, District. Multan for the construction of a hospital. Thereafter, notification under Sections 17(4) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan and the same was published in the Punjab Gazette on 21.2.2007. The Deputy District Officer (Revenue)/ Land Acquisition Collector on 5.11.2007, after completing the formalities of law, declared the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and determined compensation of land, that is, Rs, 800,000/- per acre of the land measuring 185 Kanals-01 Marla (agricultural land) situated in Mauza Dera Muhammadi and Rs, 1200,000/- per acre for the land measuring 47 Kanals-16 Marlas (residential land) situated in Mauza Dera Mohammadi alongwith 15% compulsory land acquisition charges, superstructure and trees. Consequent upon Award, being dissatisfied the appellant on 14.2.2008 filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Deputy District Officer (revenue)/Collector for sending the reference to the Civil Court for the determination of amount of compensation. After having received the reference, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan issued notices to the respondents. In response to notices, the respondents entered appearance before the learned trial Court; and contested the reference by filing replies. On pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
1. Whether the reference petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to bring this reference?
OPR
2. Whether the reference petitioner has no come to the Court with clean hands? OPR
3. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file this reference on account of his words and conduct?
OPR
4. Whether the reference is time barred? OPR
5. Whether the reference is not maintainable in its present form? OPR
6. Whether the reference petitioner has already received the consideration? If so up to what extent in terms of money? OPR
7. Whether the reference petitioner has not been adequately compensated through impugned award? OPA
8. If above issue is proved in affirmative, what should be the actual extent of compensation to be paid to the reference petitioner? OPA Relief.
3. After framing issues the learned trial Court called upon the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claims. On behalf of the appellant his son Nadeem Shahid appeared as AW-1. In support of his version the appellant produced Jamshaid Ali (AW-2) and Rashid Jameel (AW-3). The appellant, in documentary evidence, tendered special power of attorney (Ex.A-1), award (Ex.A-2), sale-deed dated 9.7.2007 (Ex.A-3) sale-deed dated 12.7.2017 (Ex.A-4), sale-deed dated 27.6.2007 (Ex.A-5), sale-deed dated 20.6.2007 (Ex. A-6), copy of Mutation No, 7604 dated 6.5.2000 (Ex.A-7), Aks Shajra (Ex.A-8) and Letter No, 714/DOR/LAC dated 30.6.2007, (Mark-A).
Conversely, the respondents in support of their version produced Muhammad Ahsan Assistant (RW-1). The respondents also produced documentary evidence i,e, copy of acquisition proceedings (Ex. R-1), certified copy of valuation of property (Ex.R-2), copy of Aust Bai Yaksala 2004-05 of Mauza Dera Muhammadi (Ex.R-3), copy of Aust Bai Yaksala 25.8.2004 to 24.8.2005 of Mauza Dera Muhammadi (Ex.R-4), copy of Khasragirdawri (Ex.R-5), Minuets of the meeting of District Price Assessm ent Committee (Ex.R6), copy of Notification No, 441/EDOR/LAC dated 26.12.2006 (Ex.R-7), copy of Letter No, 525/EDOR/LAC dated 5.3.2007 (Ex.R-8), copy of Letter No, 1930, 2006/3206-S.II dated 23.12.2006 (Ex.R-9), copy of appellant's application (Ex.R-10), copy of Letter No, 726/DOR/LAC dated 10.7.2007 (Ex.R-11) and copy of Letter No, 851-2007/767-S.II dated 5.7.2007 (Ex.R-12).
4. The learned trial Court after recording evidence partly accepted the reference and the compensation was enhanced from Rs, 5,000/- per Marla to Rs, 30,000/- per Marla along with 15 % compulsory charges and 8 % compound interest. The learned trial Court also held that the appellant was entitled to Rs, 400,000/- as costs of superstructure. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge the appellant as well the respondents have filed the appeals before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the present appeal submits that findings of the learned trial Court on Issue No, 8 are against law and facts; that the appellant produced different sale-deeds i,e, Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-6 for the determination of compensation of the land acquired but the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the sale-deeds particularly sale-deed (Ex.A-3) which shows that the property was sold at the rate of Rs, 300,000/- per Marla; and, that the value of the land at the time of acquisition was more than Rs, 250,000/- per Marla but the learned trial Court misread and non-read the evidence available on record and, therefore, fell in error while passing the impugned decree. Conversely, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab contends that the compensation of the acquired land was rightly fixed in the award as the same was in consonance with the prevailing rates in the market at that time and therefore, the same could not be enhanced by the learned trial Court; that according to survey report of the revenue field staff the land acquired was Nall Nehri at the spot and, therefore, the District Price Assessment Committee rightly assessed the price of the land as agricultural; that the award was announced after completion of codal formalities; and, that the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving his claim for the enhancement of compensation.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Assistant Advocate- General Punjab and perused the record.
7. It is an established principle of law that in land acquisition cases a party interested for enhancement of the compensation owe a duty to discharge the burden to disprove the determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector in producing convincing and legal evidence. As per Rule 10(1)(iii)(c) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, the relevant period while determining the market value is the one prevalent during the one year preceding to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and in this case the said notification was published on 24.08.2005. The appellant in order to discharge the burden of proving Issue Nos, 7 and 8 produced sale-deed dated 9.07.2007 (Ex. A-3), sale-deed dated 12.7.2007 (Ex.A-4), sale-deed dated 27.6.2007 (Ex.A-5) and sale-deed dated 20.62007 (Ex.A-6). All these sale-deeds are not relevant as the same do not precede, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is settled principle of law that the transactions which take place subsequent to the Notification under Section 4(1) of, the Land Acquisition Act are not considered proper for determination of compensation and in this regard reference may be made to the case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. Ch. Muhammad Ali (1979 CLC 523). Besides the afore-stated reasons for not accepting the above said sale-deeds, we further add that the appellant did not take any step to prove the contents of these documentary evidence. It is to be noted that merely by tendering a document in evidence, it gets no evidentiary value unless its contents are proved according to law and for this purpose reference may be made to the case of Hyderabad Development Authority through M.D.
Civic Center Hyderabad vs. Abdul Majeed and others (PLD 2002 SC 84). Now the only evidence which is left for consideration is oral statement of the witnesses. We are afraid that oral evidence is not sufficient as in the land acquisition cases it is a consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that me bald statements of witnesses produced by land owner are not sufficient to accept the claim for a higher price of acquired land. In this regard reliance may be made to the case of Abdul Sattar vs. Land Acquisition Collector Highway Department and others (2010 SCM R 1523). In view of above, the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving Issue Nos, 7 and 8 and, therefore, findings to this effect recorded by the learned trial Court are reversed.
8. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the appellant has failed to show that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector is illegal or inadequate. Accordingly, we dismiss RFA No, 176/2011 and accept RFA No, 284/2011 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan and upheld the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. No order as to costs.