JUDGMENT : Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.--The titled appeals have been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court 08.12.2015, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-landowner , Khalil Aziz, has been disposed of in the following manners:- "The upshot of the above discussion is that the whole plot No.185 of the petitioner/appellant, measuring 40x60 would be deemed to have been acquired for the compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- along with 15% compulsory charges. The petitioner shall also be entitled to 10% of Rs.45,00,000/- as has been ordered by the learned Reference Judge because land has been acquired after considerable delay . The petitioner shall also be entitled to 6% per annum on the enhanced amount as was awarded by the learned Reference Judge."
2. The facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that a part of land measuring 30'x60' out of the plot No.185, owned by the appellant, Khalil Aziz, measuring 40'x60', situate at sub-sector F/3, Part IV, Mirpur , was acquired by the Collector Land Acquis ition for construction of a link road. The Collector Land Acquisition determined the market value of the acquired piece of the plot as Rs.38,81,250/-. Feeling dissatisfied from the aforesaid compensation, the landowner filed reference application. It was averred in the application that the plot in question is of commercial nature and is situate at main Kotli, Mirpur road and the price of the same is not less than Rs.2,00,000,00/-. It was also submitted that total measurement of the plot in question is 40'x60' but the Collector Land Acquisition has acquired only 30'x60' the remaining part of the plot has became useless for the appellant, therefore, the Collector be directed to award the whole plot. It was also stated that the award has been issued after one year of the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and during this period the price of the plot has been raised but the Collector Land Acquisition has not conside red this aspect of the case. The learned Reference Judge after necessary proceedings, while accepting the reference application made 10% enhancement in the compensation amount and also issued the direction to pay interest at the rate of 6% per centum per annum on the enhanced amount, furthermore, the Collector shall also acquire the remaining part of the plot. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Judge the lando wner filed an appeal before the High Court and the learned High Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 08.12.2015 disposed of the same in the terms indicated in the preceding paragraph. Now the landowner filed appeal before this Court for further enhancement, whereas, the appellants, WAPDA & others filed appeal for setting aside the enhancement made by the Courts below .
3. Mr. Arshed Mehmood Mallick, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, Khalil Aziz, argued that the impugned judgment is against law and the facts of the case which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He contended that the documentary as well as the oral evidence produced by the landowner has not been appreciated by the Courts below in a legal manner . The judgments of the Courts below are based on misreading and non- reading of the record. He forcefully contended that the documents available on record as Exh.PI to Exh.PN are the certified copies of the transfer orders of the plots, issued by the Mirpur Development Authority , in the year 2007, while the award in the matter in hand has been announced on November , 2008 after more than one year. In this way, the said transfer letters were relevant to determine the actual price of the plot in question but the Courts below have not considered the same. He prayed for acceptance of appeal and fixation of the compensation of the acquired plot as Rs.2,00,000,00/-.
4. On the other hand, M/s Javed Najam-us-Saqib, Advocate and Mehmood Hussain Ch., the learned Additional Advocate-General strongly controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the landowner . They contended that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are contrary to law and the record of the case.
They submitted that the Collector Land Acquisition determined the compensation according to the market value of the plot. The learned Reference framed issue regarding the market value of the plot and onus of proof of the same was upon the landowner . The learned Reference Judge decided the said issue against the landowner on the ground that he failed to prove the same but despite that enhanced the compensation only on the pretext of inflation in the prices and devaluation of the currency . The learned High Court also committed the same illegality while further enhancing the compensation. They prayed for setting aside the judgments of the Courts below and maintaining the compensation assessed by the Collector .
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record along with the impugned judgment with utmost care and caution. The landowner while filing the reference application made the prayer that the Collector Land Acquisition be directed to acquire the remaining part of the plot measuring 10'x60', moreover , the compensation of the plot be fixed as Rs.2,00,000,00/-. The record shows that the landowner by producing the evidence proved that the Collector Land Acquisition acquired a part of the plot in question measuring 30'x60' and the remaining part of the plot measuring 10'x60', cannot be utilized for any purpose. The learned Reference Judge while accepting the claim of the landowner ordered the Collector to acquire the remaining part of the plot and pay its compensation to the owner . However , to the extent of the claim that the market value of the plot in question was not less than Rs.2,00,000,00/-, the landowner failed to bring on record any solid evidence. In the reference application the version of the landowner was that the plot in question is situate at the main road linked to the Kotli-Mirpur Districts and is of the commercial nature. The witnesses produced by the landowner have not supported this version of the landowner . The witness, namely , Ch.Nazir Ahmed, stated in his statement that:- {{URDU TEXT}} The witness, Nazakat Rashid, while recording his statement deposed that:- {{URDU TEXT}} The landowner while recording his statem ent has not stated even a single word that the location, nature or potential value of the plot in question and the plots transferred through the orders produced by him in evidence are the same. He also admitted that in the lane in which the plot in question is situate no commercial mall has been built, moreover , he did not sell or purchase any plot in the relevant sector at the rate of Rs.2,00,000,00/. He also admitted that in sector F/3 the facility of Gas is not available. After examining the evidence produced by the landowner it can safely be said that the plot in question is not of commercial nature. It may be observed here that the distance of yards may make difference of millions in the market value of the property situate in the urban areas.
The piece of land situate at the main road may be of a value many times higher as compared to the piece of the land which although is adjacent to road but has no approach to the main road. Thus, mere tendering of the transfer orders of the other plots is not sufficient until and unless the landowner has not proved that the acquired land is location-wise similar and its nature; kind or potential value is same as that of the transacted plots. In support of this view reference may be placed on an unreported judgment of this Court delivered in a case titled Muhammad Siddique v. Collector Land Acquisition & others (civil appeal No.78 of 2014 decided on 29.06.2016), wherein it has been held that:- "10. There is no scientific formula for the purpose of determination of the value of the land. Generally , the estimation to some context may differ according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases, the kind of land is very much material when the potential value of the land has to be determined keeping in view the agricultural produce value and in such case the market value of the land at large scale may be similar , but in case of urban property , the market value depends upon the prospective value of the land, its use or rental value, even the distance of yards may make difference of millions in its market value. The piece of land located on a road or main street may be of a value many times higher as compared to the piece of land which although is adjacent to road but has no approach to the main road. In such cases mere tendering of sale-deeds is not sufficient unless according to the peculiar facts of each case the land owner has not proved that the acquired land is location-wise similar and its nature, kind or potential value is same as that of the transacted land i.e., the subject matter of the sale-deeds."
This Court time and again has observed that where the lands are not acquired with the consent of the owners rather they have been deprived of their lands under the powers of the State, the owners are entitled to get maximum possible benefits. After scrutinizing the evidence available on record, we are satisfied that the learned High Court has already extended the maximum possible benefit to the landowner while making adequate enhancement in the compensation. Furthermore, the impugned judgment also shows that no misreading/non- reading or violation of law has been committed by the High Court while passing the same. The version of the appellants, WAPDA & others that the Collector Land Acquisition assessed the proper compensation and the Courts below without any justification enhanced the same, is not supported by any evidence. Even otherwise, when we have reached the conclusion that the learned High Court rightly enhanced the compensation in view of the material available on record, there is no need to record separate findings on the appeal filed by WAPDA & others, for setting aside the enhancement made by the Courts below in the compensation.
In view of the above, finding no force both the appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.