' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--This appeal arises out of a land acquisition matter in which a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 13-8-1995.
2. We have gone through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for both the parties.
3. The facts necessary for deciding this appeal are straightforward. There are two properties which are subject matter of the present appeal. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs,26,954/- for the first property and Rs,3,92,866/- for the second property.
4. Feeling aggrieved of the award, the respondents-land owners filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation. The Referee Court enhanced the compensation for the first property to Rs,4,00,000/- which was the amount claimed by the land owner. In respect of the second property the compensation was enhanced to Rs,25,00,000/- which was the amount claimed by the respondents-land owners. This finding was affirmed by the High Court in appeal. The Province has come in appeal against the findings of the Referee Court and of the High Court.
5. The reasons which have prevailed with the two Courts below are that the Province and the acquiring authority NHA had been proceeded against ex parte and had not led evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of the three AWs namely the respondent-Muhammad Sultan (AW.1), the respondent Ghullah (AW.2) and Ghulam Rasool (AW.3). This cannot be a basis for awarding the sum actually claimed by the respondents. It was incumbent upon the respondents to prove their assertions. AW.3 Ghulam Rasool who, it is claimed is an independent witness, has testified in the case but we note that he has merely expressed an opinion as to the value of the property in question. The provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 including Article 59 thereof make it clear that the opinion of a witness is only relevant and carries some probative value if he is an expert in the fields specified in the said Article. Furthermore, even for the purpose of giving an opinion, the witness has firstly to establish the expertise vested in him either on account of academic qualification or experience or otherwise. Without such foundation, an opinion cannot by itself, be taken as having evidentiary value for proving a fact in issue.
6. In the present case, the reasons which prevailed with the Courts below were based on an opinion expressed by a person who is neither an expert, nor has he established any basis for the opinion expressed by him.
7. In this view of the matter, the judgments of the two Courts below cannot be treated as based on admissible evidence. However, the respondents-land owners nevertheless are entitled to receive compensation for their land and superstructures in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since bald assertions have been made by AW.3 and the respondents-land owners, this will not be sufficient to sustain the impugned judgments. The same are therefore, set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Referee Court/Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha for decision afresh. Since both sides are represented, F they are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha on 8-5-2014. The learned Senior Civil Judge may hear the case himself or entrust it to another Court of competent jurisdiction.
8. We may clarify in view of what has been stated above, that both parties shall be allowed to lead evidence as to the amount of compensation. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.