' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---The supra titled both the appeals have been filed against the judgment and decree of Reference Judge Mangla Dam Raising Project Mirpur dated 7-1-2010, through which the compensation of the acquired land was enhanced.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the above mentioned appeals are that the land measuring 2136 Kanals and 15 Marlas was acquired, which was situated at village Boha Tehsil Mirpur, The Collector Land Acquisition assessed and determined the compensation of the acquired land classifying it into eleven kinds as under:-- S.No.Kind of the Land Compensation per Kanal
1. Hael 5,00,000 2.Maira Awal 4,50,000 3.Maira Doim 4,00,000 4.Banjar Qadeem 1,50,000 5.Ghair Mumkin Aabadi 6,00,000 6.Ghair Mumkin Shops 6,00,000
7. Chair Mumkin Orchard 5,50,000 8.Ghair Mumkin Kassi, Graveyard etc 65,000 9.Ghair Mumkin Brick Kiln 4,50,000 10.Ghair Mumkin School / Dispensary/ Poultry Form4,50,000 11.Deegar Ghair Mumkin 1,30,000 ' The Collector Land Acquisition also added 15% as Compulsory Acquisition Charges (CAC) into the above-mentioned compensation.
3. The land measuring 62 Kanals, 14 Marlas and 7 Sarsai bearing Asami Nos. 960, 961, 834, 583, 506 and 869 was in the ownership of the appellants Fazal Ellahi and others which was acquired as well.
The appellants Fazal Ellahi and others filed a reference before Collector Land Acquisition Mangla Dam Raising Project on behalf of residents of the village, feeling dissatisfied from the compensation determined for the acquired land. After hearing the parties, the learned Reference Judge enhanced and determined the compensation regarding the kinds of the land acquired as under:--
(i) Rs, 5,55,000 per Kanal for the kind Hael.
(ii) Rs, 5,00,000 per Kanal for its kind Maira Awal. (ii) Rs, 1,50,000 per Kanal for the kind Deegar Ghair Mumkin. (iv) Rs, 6,60,000 per Kanal for the kind Ghair Mumkin Aabadi.
' Compulsory Acquisition Charges (CAC) as 15% was added to the enhanced compensation. The said reference was decreed in favour of the appellants/petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 including the proforma respondents/non-petitioners and the reference to the extent of the appellants/petitioners Nos.4 and 5 Muhammad Ghalib Khan and Muhammad Khalid was dismissed.
4. Feeling aggrieved the parties, the WAPDA and another and the owners of the acquired land preferred the above-mentioned counter appeals before this court. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Ch. Munsaf Dad Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants WAPDA and another argued that the learned Reference Judge did not record his findings in accordance with the evidence and the provisions of law. The owners of the land could not prove the market value of the acquired land as they prayed for.. The learned Reference Judge observed that the market value was not proved as prayed for, but the learned Judge enhanced the compensation in an arbitrary manner. The Collector Land Acquisition has determined the compensation in accordance with the market value prevailing in the area at the time of acquisition. The learned counsel requested to accept the appeal filed by the appellants WAPDA and another and to dismiss the counter appeal filed by the owners of the land.
' Ch. Muhammad Jamil Advocate, the learned counsel for the Collector owned the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants WAPDA and another
5. While controverting the learned counsel for the appellants WAPDA and another, Mr. Masood-A Sheikh Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants Fazal Ellahi and others contended that the learned Reference Judge did not enhance the compensation in accordance with the evidence and the provisions of law. The owners of the land have placed attested copies of sale-deeds on record, which reflect that the market price of the acquired land was not less than Rs,15 lacs PK, but the learned Reference Judge enhanced a very low amount regarding the compensation. The learned counsel requested to accept the appeal filed by the owners of the acquired land and to dismiss the appeal filed by the WAPDA and another.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the relevant law carefully and minutely. The reference under appeal was dismissed to the extent of the appellants/ petitioners Muhammad Ghalib Khan and Muhammad Khalid with the reason that they acquiesced to the impugned price while receiving the compensation without any protest. The learned counsel for the owners of the land did not press to the extent of the said appellants/petitioners. Although, it was mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that the appellants have not voluntarily consented or acquiesced regarding the award and compensation, but no proof has been placed on record to show that the appellants Muhammad Ghalib Khan and Muhammad Khalid have not received the compensator, voluntarily and without protest. So, the observation of the learned Reference Judge regarding dismissal of the reference to their extent is upheld.
7. The sole point left to be resolved is whether the compensation was enhanced in. Accordance with the evidence and provisions of law or not? The Collector Land Acquisition has relied upon the sale-deeds executed during one year period before issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector has mentioned five sale-deeds in para 3 of the award Exh.
"PA" and has assessed the average price of the acquired land through the said sale-deeds. Even the higher price was assessed as compared to the said average price. The appellants Fazal Ellahi and others have placed attested copies of seven sale-deeds on record. The sale-deeds Exh. "PL" and "PO" are relevant which were executed on 30-3-2005 and 20-6-2005, These sale-deeds were executed within one year period prior to issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Land Revenue Act, which /vas issued on 27-8-2005, The remaining sale-deeds Exh. PM, PN, PP, PQ and PR are irrelevant because they were executed in the year 2007 after issuance of the notification under section 4. According to the sale-deed Exh. "PL" the land measuring 5 Kanals was sold against a price of Rs, 17, 50,000, means Rs, 3 lacs PK. According to the sale-deed Exh. "PO" the and measuring 4 Kanals was sold against a price of Rs, 34 lacs, means Rs,8,50,000 PK. The land in both the sale- deeds has been shown to be situated on the road side. It is a settled principle of law that location of the acquired land has to be considered while ascertaining its market value. The record does not reveal that the acquired land is situated on the road side or near the populated area. It has not been proved that the lands sold through the said sale-deeds were of similar kind and having similar location to the land under reference. It is a well known practice that heavy amount is endorsed as price of the land at the time of execution of any sale-deed to avoid a pre-emption suit. It has not been proved also that the amount mentioned in the said sale-deeds was in fact paid to the vendors. It reflects from the said sale-deeds that full price money was not received in cash by the vendors before Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. So, the comparison of price of the said lands cannot be compared to the land under reference.
8. The learned Reference Judge has enhanced the compensation to some extent only to console the owners of the land because of their deprivation from theft land without their consent. The owners of the land did not prove the market value of the acquired land as they have claimed through their reference. The appellants WAPDA and another could not prove that the learned Reference Judge has not enhanced the compensation in accordance with the evidence and provisions of law. Even, they did not produce any evidence before the learned Reference Judge to prove their version regarding the market value of the acquired land. So it seems just and proper to maintain the enhanced amount by the learned Reference Judge.
' In the light of what has been stated above, the appellants of both the counter appeals have failed to prove their version. The findings recorded by the learned Reference Judge are based on sound and cogent reasons, which need no indulgence by this court. So, both the appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.