' CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J.---This direct appeal has been filed from the judgment of the High Court dated 24.04.2015, through which the appeal filed by respondent No, 1, herein, has been accepted.
2. The summary of the facts is that through Award No, 38/2006 dated 14.11.2006, the land of respondent No, 1 and proforma respondent 'No, .6 bearing Khewat No, 47, Khata No, 182, measuring 14 marla situated in Mozia Ballah, Tehsil and District Mirpur was acquired by the Collector Land Acquisition for construction of Mirpur bypass Road. Feeling aggrieved from the compensation assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition, respondent No, 1 filed a reference before Reference Judge Mirpur on 12.02.2007 alleging therein that he has not been provided an opportunity of hearing during the proceedings of award. The notice under sections 9 and 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 10.01.2007 after the issuance of award. It was alleged that the amount of compensation of the acquired land was wrongly assessed by the Collector Land Acquisition whereas the market value of the same is not less than Rs, 1,50,00,000/-. The learned Reference Judge through judgment and decree dated 30.01.2008 declared the respondent entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs, 6,25,000/-per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Respondent No, 1 filed an appeal before the High Court. The learned High Court through the impugned judgment while accepting the appeal enhanced the compensation amount of the acquired land to the tune of Rs, 23,98,000/-per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges.
3. Chaudhary Liaquat Afzal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, after narration of necessary facts submitted that the impugned judgment is against the statutory provision of law. In this case, the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 23.8.2005.
The Collector according to the statutory provision of law has properly assessed the compensation of acquired land. The enhancement of compensation on the ground of legally inadmissible evidence is against law. The copies of the sale-deeds tendered in evidence by the land owners are not of worth consideration as the transactions in the sale-deeds were admittedly made after publication of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. These transactions appear to be for the purpose of residential and commercial use which has no nexus with the land, the subject matter of the acquisition. Moreover, the location of the acquired land and that of transacted through the sale-deeds is quite different. Neither the vendors nor the vendees of the said sale- deeds have been produced as witnesses to establish that the consideration mentioned in the sale- deeds is actually paid or the same is merely ostensible. The fact cannot be proved unless the parties to the documents or marginal witnesses are produced. Mere copies of the sale-deeds are not proof of its contents, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be recalled to the extent of enhancement of compensation and consequently, the assessment made by the Collector be restored.
4. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Siddique Chaudhry, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent, strongly opposed the appeal on the ground that on the subject matter of the impugned award, the final judgments of this Court have already been delivered. The land owner has successfully proved the market value of the land as verdicted by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The acquired land falls within the municipal area having the potential of future use as commercial and industrial future use. For the identically located land, this Court has already in the judgments upheld the market value like one determined by the High Court in' the impugned judgment. In this regard, he placed reliance on the cases reported as Sabir Hussain v.
Collector Land Acquisition and others [2015 SCR 608], Malik Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Azad Govt. And others [2015 SCR 712] and WAPDA v. Sardar Asif and another [2013 SCR 673] and submitted that this appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In the light of the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record made available. The location of the acquired property within the municipal area is an admitted fact. The appellant, herein, has not bothered to produce any sort of evidence of the stand taken in the objections in relation to market value of the acquired land. The respondent-land owner got his own statement recorded and tendered in evidence the copies of the award (Ex.PA) and sale-deeds (Exhs. PC and PD). The copies of orders of development authority in relation to transfer of plots (Exhs. PE and PF) have also been tendered. The appellant herein, has even not bothered to cross- examine the sole witness in relation to payment of consideration money mentioned in the sale- deeds or produce the vendors or vendees of the documents. It has also not been pointed out that the sale-deeds are not relevant being regarding the land which has different potential value with reference to its location or usage. Thus, according to the celebrated principle of law, in this state of affairs, the evidence produced by the landowner has to be considered as unrebutted. The respondent-land owner has himself relied upon the contents of the award, Exh.PA, in which in addition to two sale-deeds tendered in evidence, the third sale-deed executed on 21.04.2005 is also mentioned on which the land-owner relied upon while raising objections before the Collector Land Acquisition. Same like, according to the valuation table issued by the Collector District Mirpur, the value of the land situated in village Ballah is assessed to be Rs,22,00,000/- per kanal, as is mentioned in the award (Exh.PA).
6. The learned High Court while assessing the compensation has only relied upon the judgment of this Court titled Ch. Muhammad Sadique and others v. Azad Govt. And others (Civil Appeal No, 25/2010 decided on 15.07.2011), reproduced the relevant paragraph and on the basis of that assessed the value of the land as Rs, 23,98,000/- per kanal. In our opinion, every case has to be decided according to its own record. The High Court has not made proper appreciation of evidence produced in record and merely reproduced the findings recorded in some other case.
Admittedly, in this case three sale-deeds are referred and relied upon by the land-owner as is established from the record. According to these sale-deeds, the average price per kanal comes to Rs, 22,01,582/- per kanal. Same like, according to the valuation table the value is fixed as Rs, 22,00,000/- per kanal. Thus, in our opinion, in this case according to the produced evidence, the market value of the land has been proved as Rs,22,00,000/- per kanal. This Court in the case reported as Malik Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Azad Govt. And others [2015 SCR 712] while determining the market value on the basis of valuation table observed as follows:-- "Thus, for determination of the market value of the land the valuation table issued by the District Collector under the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 is a relevant document, which provides the value of agricultural land measuring one marla in village Sangot as Rs, 1,10,000/-and two sale- deeds, Exh. "PL" and "PP" also provide the similar average value. In pursuance of the valuation table issued by the District Collector and the sale-deeds regiitered on 6th February, 2006 and 25th June, 2005, Exh. "PL and PP" respectively, it is concluded that the market value of the land in village Sangot is the one which is fixed in the valuation table issued by the Collector, which comes to Rs, 1,10,000/- per marla."
According to the peculiar facts, the above mentioned principle applies 'of the case in hand. Thus, in the light of the evidence produced, the market value of the land comes to Rs, 22,00,000/- per kanal.
Therefore, while accepting this appeal, the compensation amount enhanced by the High Court as Rs,23,98,000 is modified and reduced to Rs,22,00,000 (twenty two lac) per kanal.
This appeal stands accepted with the above modification in the impugned judgment and decree.
No order as to costs.