Raja Saeed Akram Khan. J.-- The above titled appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 11.6.2014, whereby the appeals filed by Qurban Hussain & another have been dismissed on merit while the appeals filed by WAPDA have been dismissed on the ground being not competently filed.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are that the houses of the appellants, Qurban Hussain and another were acquired for Mangla Dam Raising Project. Feeling aggrieved from the compensation amount determined by the Collector they filed reference applications before the Collector Land Acquisition, who referred the same to the Reference Judge, Mangla Dam Raising Project. The Reference Judge vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 enhanced the compensation amount. Dissatisfied from the enhancement in compensation made by the Reference Judge, the appellants, herein, as well as WAPDA filed four appeals in the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court decided the appeals through the consolidated judgment and decree dated 11.6.2014 and dismissed all the appeals. Hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. At the very outset, Ch. Liaqat Afzal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection that the reference filed by the appellants before the Reference Judge was hopelessly time-barred.
Moreover, the appellants filed references on 3.10.2009, after receiving the compensation amount but the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration this important aspect of the case and the learned High Court has also not given the proper weight to this crucial question.
4. Mr. Muhammad Siddique Chaudhary, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, while replying to the preliminary objection submitted that after announcement of the award, no notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Collector, therefore, the appellants filed reference applications when they came to the knowledge of the award. In this way, the reference applications have been filed well within time.
5. On merits of the case, he argued that the learned High Court has not appreciated the evidence brought on record in its true perspective, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submitted that the compensation claimed by the appellants has been proved through un-rebutted evidence, therefore, the Reference Judge should have awarded the claimed compensation to the appellants. The learned High Court has also overlooked this important aspect of the case. Moreover, the learned High Court while deciding the appeals filed by the appellants has not taken into account the provisions of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He maintained that the precious and valuable land of the appellants was acquired for Mangla Dam Raising Project and the purpose of acquisition of the land is of commercial nature but the compensation determined by the Collector is inadequate. He further maintained that the property acquired is situate in the limits of the Municipal Corporation and in this regard the whole evidence, oral as well as documentary produced by the appellants, is admitted by the Courts below. He contended that in spite of producing the overwhelming evidence, the learned Reference Judge enhanced a very meager amount in favour of the appellants, thus, in this way, the provisions of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been violated. The learned counsel further contended that the potential value of the land has also not been taken into consideration by the Courts below. The learned counsel further contended that in the instant case the market value has been assessed at the rates prevailing in the year 2005, whereas, the compensation should have been assessed at the time of notification under section 4 was issued by the Collector Land Acquisition. The Collector Land Acquisition assessed the compensation amount without considering the parameters laid down in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The houses and the shops of the appellants are of commercial nature and while acquiring the shops, they have been deprived of their permanent source of income.
6. On the other hand, Ch. Liaqat Afzal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents, while controverting the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the appellants have adequately been compensated, therefore, they are not entitled for further enhancement. Moreover, the Reference Judge after appreciating the evidence produced by the appellants enhanced a reasonable compensation amount. The appellants failed to substantiate their claim that the market value of the acquired built up property was Rs. 15,00,00,00/-, therefore, the same cannot be awarded to them at their sweet will. The learned counsel strongly argued that the value of the property assessed by unconcerned person is inadmissible in evidence on the basis of which no compensation can be awarded.
7. We have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available. The appellants, herein, filed references against amended award No. 322 of 2009 dated 23.5.2009 before the Reference Judge Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur on 20.7.2009, through which the houses bearing codes No. M.79 and M.80 situate at village Bandral, Tehsil & District Mirpur were acquired. It was stated that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 1.9.2008, whereas, the compensation amount was assessed in the light of the rates pertaining to the year 2005. It was further stated that before issuance of the notification, no compensation amount of the disputed houses along with two shops was assessed. The Collector Land Acquisition assessed a very meager amount, whereas, the market value of the disputed property is not less than Rs.1,50,00000/- & 3,40,00,000/-, respectively, along with compulsory acquisition charges. The Reference Judge, Mangla Dam Raising Project vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 enhanced the compensation amount as Rs. 6,31,170/- & 16,31,806 along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and the learned High Court affirmed the same.
8. At first, we intend to resolve the preliminary objection regarding the limitation raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It appears from the record that the appellants have participated in the acquisition proceedings, however, the learned counsel for the respondents failed to substantiate that after announcement of the award, any notice under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the appellants. For better appreciation we would like to reproduce here section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as under:-- "12. Award of Collector when to be final. (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land and the appointment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representative when the award is made."
According to the provisions of section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, reproduced hereinabove, it was enjoined upon the Collector to issue notice immediately to the land owners regarding the issuance of award, whereas, admittedly, the Collector Land Acquisition has not issued any notice to the appellants-land owners.
Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants were aware of the acquisition process is, ill-founded. It is settled law that if a notice of award under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is not issued and served upon the interested person, then limitation for filing reference shall be reckoned from the date of knowledge and not from the date of award. In a recent case titled Muhammad Meharban & 4 others vs. Collector Land Acquisition & 3 others [2015 SCR 1034], while dealing with the proposition it has been observed as under-- "5. The case of the appellants is that at the time of announcement of award they were abroad and they came to know about the announcement of award on 11.05.2008 and they received the compensation thereafter under protest. The reference application filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Reference Judge on the point of limitation and the learned High Court also affirmed the view expressed by the trial Court. It is spelt out from the record that award was announced on 10.09.2007, whereas, the appellants received the compensation amount on two different dates i.e., 11.05.2008 and 14.05.2008. They moved the reference application on 22.07.2008. In the reference application, the appellants took the specific plea regarding non-filing of the reference application within prescribed period of limitation. It will be useful to reproduce here the relevant portion of the reference application which reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} To verify the above referred plea taken by the appellants-land owners that no notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served upon them, we have gone through the record. After perusing the whole record minutely, we failed to find out any document from which it could be ascertained that any serious effort was made by the Collector to serve the notices upon the appellants. It will be useful to reproduce here section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which reads as under:- "12. Award of Collector when to be final.- (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made."
According to the provisions of section 12(2), Land Acquisition Act, reproduce hereinabove, it was enjoyed upon the Collector to issue notice immediately to the land owners regarding the issuance of award. From the bare reading of the award, it reveals that the notices were not issued to the appellants. In such like situation, section 18 of Land Acquisition Act provides the mechanism for filing reference application. For better appreciation section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is reproduce here which reads as under:- "18. Reference to Court.-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, be written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken; Provided that every such application shall be made---
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
3. The Collector shall forward a reference to the Court within a period of 30 days from receipt of the application under sub-Section (1) unless the Collector rejects the application within aforesaid period on any of the grounds provided by the Act."
From the combined reading of the provisions of both the sections, reproduce hereinabove, it reveals that when service is not effected upon the person interested, then the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge........."
9. While attending the merits of the case, we have gone through the record. It will be appropriate to reproduce here the prayer clause of the reference application, which was filed by the appellants on 20.7.2009. The prayer clause of the reference application regarding the house bearing code No. M.79 is reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} The prayer clause of the reference application regarding the house bearing code No.M.80 is reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} We have also perused the evidence brought on record. From the juxtapose perusal of the prayer clauses of the reference applications and the oral as well as documentary evidence, it reveals that the appellants failed to prove that the market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs. 3,00,000,00/- and 3,40,00,000/, respectively.
10. The perusal of the documentary evidence brought on record, i.e., Exh. 'PB' & 'PH', the building replacement cost valuation (BRCV) prepared by the joint team of the civil engineers, shows that after thoroughly examining the quality and quantity of the material used in the houses and all other relevant factors they have submitted their report. It is also evident from the record that the appellants-land owners failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the building replacement cost valuation (BRCV). Moreover, the argument of the learned counsel that the award was issued in the year 2009, whereas, the compensation was assessed and awarded to them according to the rates prevailing in the year 2005 is also seems to be baseless as the price escalation at the rate of 47% has also been awarded to the appellants.The valuation certificates brought on record by the appellants, prepared by the private person cannot be relied upon safely and has no value in the eye of law. The learned Reference Judge in paragraphs 15 & 16 of the judgment has discussed the evidence in a legal manner and recorded the well reasoned findings. The Reference Judge, keeping in view all the relevant factors enhanced the compensation amount adequately, therefore, the learned High Court has not committed any illegality while upholding the judgment and decree of the Reference Judge.
In the light of what has been discussed above, the appellants have failed to substantiate their claim through cogent evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court needs no interference by this Court, hence, stands upheld. Consequently, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.