MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, CJ. --- The captioned appeal by way of leave of the Court arises out of the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 9th August, 2011, whereby Civil Appeal No. 656/2009, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed.
2. The necessary facts, as claimed by the appellant, are that he is resident of village Thanpal, Tehsil Dudyal, District Mirpur. His land measuring 47 kanals, 19 marlas and 5 sarsahis, out of khewat No. 98 has been acquired for Mangla Dam Raising Project vide Award No. 53/2008 on 14th March, 2008.
The Collector Land Acquisition, keeping in view the kind of land, assessed the market value of the land as Rs. 5,00,000/- per kanal for 'hail', Rs. 4,25,000/- per kanal for maira-awal, Rs. 3,50,000/- per kanal for `maira-doem' and Rs. 80,000/- for banjar qadeem' plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant filed a reference application before the Collector, who referred the same to the Reference Judge Mangla Dam Raising Project. The Reference Judge disposed of the reference and enhanced the compensation amount of the land to Rs. 5,40,000/- per kanal for 'hail', Rs. 4,55,000/- per kanal for `maira-awal, Rs. 3,70,000/- per kanal for `maira doem' and Rs. 98,000/- per kanal for tanjar qadeem' plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The appellant again filed an appeal in the High Court. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment on 9th August, 2011. Hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Ch. Muhammad Akhter, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the judgment of the High Court is not maintainable. The learned Judge failed to consider certain findings recorded by the Collector Land Acquisition and oral evidence produced by the appellant. He contended that the WAPDA produced no evidence in support of its claim. It was enjoined upon the learned Judge in the High Court to rely upon the oral evidence of the appellant. He argued that it is on the record that the Collector recorded finding in award that during the prescribed period no sale-deed was executed in village Thanpal which is adjacent to village Samlotha. He relied upon the sale-deeds executed in village Samlotha during the period of last one year calculating the market price as Rs.
3,68,000/- per kanal. The learned counsel vehemently argued that when the Collector reached the conclusion that on the basis of sale-deeds of village Samlotha, the market price comes to Rs.
3,68,000/-then it was enjoined upon the Collector to fix the market value at the rate of Rs.
3,68,000/- per kanal irrespective of the kind of the land but the Collector, the learned Reference Judge and the learned Single Judge in the High Court failed to consider this aspect of the case. He argued that in a number of cases, the Supreme Court of Pakistan and this Court have held that when the land is acquired for single purpose, the market value has to be fixed irrespective of the kind of the land. The learned counsel lastly argued that the Reference Judge delivered the judgment against Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Judge in the High Court also violated the statutory law and the judgments of the superior Courts wherein guiding principles have been laid down for determination of market value. The learned counsel relied upon two unreported judgments of this Court titled Rehmat Jan and others v. Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur [Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2009, decided on 27.1.2011] and Akhtar Hussain and another v. Azad Government and others [Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2008, decided on 8.5.2012].
4. While controverting the arguments, Sardar Muhammad Razak Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal. The appellant has not produced any evidence for proving the market value of the land. The learned Collector has correctly determined and fixed the compensation.
5. VVe have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant claimed in the reference application that land measuring 47 kanals, 19 marlas, 5 sarsahis, comprising khewat No. 98, situate in village Thanpal; Tehsil Dadyal, was acquired by the Collector Mangla Dam Raising Project under Award dated 14th March, 2008. The category of land is 'hail', while it has incorrectly been entered as maira-doem', banjar qadeem' and ghair mumkin'. He claimed the compensation at the rate of six million rupees per kanal. The reference Judge accepted the reference and enhanced the compensation of the land bearing category 'hail', 'maira-awal, `maira-doem' and 'banjar qadeem' from Rs.
5,00,000/- to Rs. 5,40,000/-, Rs 4,00,000/- to Rs. 4,55,000/-, Rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 3,70,000/- and Rs.
80,000/- to Rs. 98,000/- respectively with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The claim of the appellant is that the category of all the acquired land is 'hail' and `maira awal'. It is situated near Abadi-Deh. It has incorrectly been assessed and entered as `maira-doem, banjar qadeem' in the revenue record. The appellant claims that no sale-deed was executed in village Thanpal within one year from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, he relies upon the sale-deeds executed in village Samlotha, which is an adjacent village. The law is clear that when there is no sale-deed in respect of land of the same village, then the market value has to be assessed on the basis of sale-deeds executed in the adjacent villages. But the perusal of the record of Reference Judge reveals that the appellant has not produced any sale-deed pertaining to village Samlotha or any other adjacent village for proving the market value. The appellant has only produced oral evidence. To prove his case, he has produced Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Sharif, resident of village Samlotha, as his witness, who in his examination-in-chief stated that the market value of the land in village Samlotha is fifty to sixty lac rupees per kanal. In the cross-examination he stated that he has heard from different people that the compensation has been fixed below the market price. He is not in knowledge of any sale-deed executed for the consideration of fifty to sixty lac rupees per kanal. Muhammad Tariq, another witness of the appellant, stated that the market value of the acquired land is fifty to sixty lac rupees per kanal. He also stated that he is not a witness of any sale-deed. He has heard that one Ch. Allah Ditta has purchased land against the price of forty to fifty lac rupees per kanal. Now the market value of that land is forty-eight lac rupees per kanal. Sajid Iqbal another witness of the appellant, in his examination-in-chief stated that the market value of the land is fifty to sixty lac rupees per kanal. He also stated that he has not purchased any land against this price. He has no direct knowledge of price but he stated so on the basis of hearsay. Maqsood Ahmed, attorney for the appellant, appeared as a witness and stated that the market value of the land is fifty to sixty lac rupee per kanal. He claimed that the compensation of the land be enhanced category-were. He has not demanded the compensation for the whole land irrespective of the categories of the land at a uniform rate. He also stated that he is not directly in knowledge of any sale-deed and telling so because a person from Thanpal has told him that the land has been sold at the rate of fifty to sixty lac rupees per kanal. It is well-settled law that hearsay is no evidence in the eye of law and cannot be relied upon.
6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act are relevant for determining the compensation to be awarded for the land acquired. The best evidence in determining the compensation can be the sale-deeds executed in the village, but when there is no sale-deed executed in that village, the sale-deeds executed in the adjacent villages can be relied upon by the Collector for determining the compensation. The appellant has not produced any sale-deed executed in the adjacent villages, while the Collector Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, has relied upon the sale- deeds executed in village Samlotha during the past one year from the date of issuance of notification under section 4 and calculated average price as Rs. 3,42,989/- per kanal and fixed the compensation in the light of referred sale-deeds. The appellant failed to bring on record any sale- deed of the adjacent village on the basis of which compensation could be awarded upto fifty or sixty lac rupees per kanal.
7. We have considered the argument of the counsel for the appellant that in fact the acquired land is of `hail' category. It is incorrectly entered as `maira doem', `ghair mumkin' and banjar qadeem'.
The appellant failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim. The revenue record relied upon by the Collector des ,ribes the categories of land where the land of the appellant is entered as 'hail', `maira awal', 'maira doem', 'ghair mumkin' and 'banjar qadeem', The argument has no force and it is hereby repelled.
8. We have minutely perused the oral evidence. All the witnesses produced by the appellant stated that they have heard from different people that the market value of the land is fifty to sixty lac rupee per kanal. They stated that they are not directly in knowledge of any such sale-deed.
Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the market value of the land is fifty to sixty lac rupees per kanal is not proved from any evidence.
9. We have also considered the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the compensation of land shall be fixed irrespective of the category of land. It was not claimed by the appellant in the reference application that the compensation be awarded irrespective of its category. The statement of Maqsood Ahmed, attorney for the appellant, as a witness in the Trial Court, is relevant who stated that:- {{URDU TEXT}} =AA FIJI 1:114.
After claiming that the compensation of land be enhanced according to category of land, the appellant cannot turn round and claim that the compensation of land be awarded at uniform rate without distinction of category, therefore, the argument that the compensation be awarded without distinction of category is not available to the appellant.
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 on footings.
It was enjoined upon the appellant to prove its case with the best evidence that 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.
11. As we have observed that the attorney for the appellant has claimed enhancement of compensation according to the categories of land, therefore, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not helpful to the case of the appellant.
12. The result of above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.