' 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 29-10-2009, through which the compensation of the awarded brick-kiln owned by the present appellant was enhanced. Both the appeals are disposed of through a single judgment.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that certain brick-kilns situated at village Sangot Tehsil and District Mirpur were acquired under Award No, 176/2008 dated 12-4-2008. An amount of Rs,32, 78,732 was assessed and determined as compensation of brick-kiln No, MBK-33 owned by the present appellant. Feeling dissatisfied, the present appellant filed a reference before Collector Land Acquisition which was forwarded to the learned Reference Judge for disposal under law. It was prayed through the reference to enhance the compensation of the brick-kiln as Rs,2 crores along with 25% as compulsory acquisition charges and 8% profit on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession of the said brick-kiln. After hearing the parties, the learned Reference Judge 'Mangla Dam Raising Project Mirpur enhanced the compensation of the brick-kiln in sum of Rs,4,26,234 along with 15% as compulsory acquisition charges on the enhanced compensation and 6% interest per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession of the brick-kiln. Feeling aggrieved both the parties, Tariq Mehmood owner of the brick-kiln and WAPDA and another have filed the above-mentioned counter appeals before this court.
3. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Arshad Mehmood Mallick Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant Tariq Mehmood argued that the learned Reference Judge has not recorded his findings in accordance with the evidence and provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation of brick-kiln along with the infrastructure and bricks stock was not assessed and determined according to the market value by the Collector Land Acquisition.
Even, the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were not issued. Many items were not assessed for the purpose of compensation. There was a Well, Donkey shed and Electricity polls with wires within the premises of brick-kiln but these items were left without assessm ent. The owner/present appellant had affixed the electricity polls and wires at his own cost, but no estimate of expenses was managed. The compensation regarding annual production of bricks was not determined properly and according to the factual production. Escalation charges were determined as 10.92%, while 20% escalation charges were fixed for other brick-kilns. Stock shifting charges were assessed very low. The compulsory acquisition charges and interest on enhanced compensation was not determined in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned counsel requested to determine the compensation of the brick-kiln as Rs,2 crores along with 25% as CAC and 8% interest on enhanced compensation and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
2001 YLR 515 2002 SCM R 407 2009 CLC 79
4. While controverting the learned counsel for the appellant Tariq Mehmood, Ch. Muhammad Afzal Advocate, the learned counsel for WAPDA and another contended that the Collector Land Acquisition has determined just and adequate compensation of the said brick-kiln in accordance with the settled principles and provisions of law. The owner of the brick-kiln could not prove his version regarding enhancement of the compensation at all. The learned Reference Judge did not record his findings regarding enhancement of the compensation in accordance with the evidence on record and provisions of law. The learned counsel argued further that the land on which the said brick-kiln was constructed had been acquired long ago when Mangla Dam was constructed firstly, so there was no need of issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The constructions made over earlier acquired land were totally illegal and the concerned owners were not entitled for any compensation later on. Such like owners were declared entitled for their constructions according to a contract between the AJ&K Government and the WAPDA. All the charges regarding escalation, shifting and compulsory acquisition were determined equally for all the brick-kilns situated at village Sangot Tehsil and District Mirpur. The owner of the brick-kiln failed to place on record any proof regarding missing items or low assessment. The learned counsel requested to set aside the judgment and decree of the Reference Judge accepting the appeal filed by WAPDA and another and to dismiss the appeal of the appellant Tariq Mehmood.
'Ch. Muhammad Jamil Advocate, the learned counsel for the Collector Land Acquisition owned the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for WAPDA and another and requested the same as well.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and perused the precedents referred carefully and minutely. The sole point to be resolved is that whether the compensation along with other charges was determined in accordance with the evidence and provisions of law or not? The record reveals that the Collector Land Acquisition prepared a break- up of price of the brick-kilns situated at village Sangot equally according to the annual production of each brick-kiln. The Collector did not add the expenses incidental due to change of place of business of the brick-kiln according to section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is pertinent to reproduce the break-up prepared by the Collector regarding compensation of the kiln owned by, present appellant through the award, which is as under:-- {{TABLE}} 'The present appellant has produced Muhammad Shabir, Muhammad Zakria and Mushtaq Ahmed as witnesses. All the three witnesses stated that market price of the brick-kiln was up to Rs, 02 crores, certain rooms, a water well and three water tanks were constructed within the premises of the kiln and turnover of the brick-kiln was 40 lacs bricks per year. The owner had installed electricity polls and power connection at his own expenses. These witnesses were not the persons having any qualification or expertness in building construction. The owner of the brick-kiln failed to produce any type of estimation and assessme nt by any official or private qualified experts. It is a settled principle of law that only oral statements of witnesses cannot be relied upon in the cases of land acquisition. This principle has been laid down in the precedent PLJ 2013 Lah. 172 that bald statements of witnesses produced by land owners were not sufficient to accept claim for higher price of acquired land. Meaning thereby that oral evidence is not sufficient in the land acquisition cases.
6. The present appellant Tariq Mehmood has failed to prove the market price of his brick-kiln as he prayed for. He has produced the witnesses who are laymen and they stated in a fanciful manner what they were asked to state. No reliable document has been placed on record to show that what was the real production of bricks per annum and the production mentioned in the award was not according to the real production. The appellant Tariq Mehmood also failed to place his Income Tax statements despite he was asked to do so. It was enjoined upon the owner of the brick-kiln to procure estimates of water Well, Donkey shed and the expenses occurred on Electricity polls etc. Even, he could not produce the verification that the polls and other accessories were installed on his own expenses. The owner of the brick-kiln could not place any reliable proof entitling him to have escalation charges as 20%. By an amendment compulsory acquisition charges stood enhanced up to 25% in the Province of Punjab, but the said amendment has not been adopted in the Act in AJ&K.
7. The learned Reference Judge included the expenses for change of place of business as 03% of the price determined by the Collector and has enhanced the compensation to some extent with the reason that the owner was deprived of his brick-kiln without his consent and due to escalation of prices of building material. Although, the owner of the brick-kiln could not prove the market price of the brick-kiln as he prayed for, but it does not instigate to indulge into the findings of the learned Reference Judge regarding a small enhancement in the compensation. On the other hand, the appellants WAPDA and another could not prove and convince that the learned Reference Judge has not recorded his findings in accordance with the evidence and provisions of law. The facts of the precedents referred by the learned counsel for the appellant Tariq Mehmood have no conformity with the facts of the present case.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, both the appeals fail which are hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.