Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 02.04.2015, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents, herein, has been accepted.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Collector Land Acquisition vide award No.55, dated 26.06.2008, acquired the land of the landowner (predecessor of the present respondents), situate at village Anmb, Tehsil Dadyal, measuring 12 kanal 19 marla , comprising survey No.1869 and 1924. The Collector Land Acquisition determined the market value of the acquired land as Rs.5,00,000/- per kanal . Feeling aggrieved from the compensation determined by the Collector Land Acquisition, the landowner , filed reference application. The learned Reference Judge after necessary proceedings enhanced and fixed the compensation as Rs.5,50,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisi tion charges. Again feeling dissatisfied, the landowner filed appeal before the High Court for further enhancement in the compensation. The learned High Court while accepting the appeal enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,18,182/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges vide impugned judgment and decree dated 02.04.2015. Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr.Liaqat Afzal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant 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 impugned judgment is based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence.
The Courts below failed to take into consideration that in response to the notice under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the landowners fully participated in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector , but they never established any specific claim towards the market value of the land and this fact is proved from clause 87 of the award. He added that in absence of any specific claim before the Collector , the enha ncement in compensation cannot be made, but both the Courts below failed to consider this importa nt aspect of the case. While referring to clause 87 of the award, he strongly submitted that the landowners before the Collector only demanded that the kind of the land mentioned in the award may be changed. As the relief claimed before the Collector Land Acquisition is contrary to the relief claimed in the reference applicatio n, therefore, the reference application is hit by the mischief of section 25(2), of the Land Acquisition Act. He contended that the findings recorded by the learned Reference Judge on issue No.1, are against law and without jurisdiction. In continuation of the arguments, he submitted that both the Courts below have also failed to take into account that the compensation cannot be awarde d beyond the provisions of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. He further contended that the sale-deed, Exh.PF , upon which the Courts below have heavily relied upon, has no nexus with the acquired land as the land subjecting of the said sale-deed is of commercial nature, whereas, the acquired land is situated at a considerable distance of 2 kilometer from the road. He maintained that although in the sale-deed, Exh.PF , the kind of land has not been mentioned, however , the same is hail in kind, whereas, the kind of land in question is maira awal, therefore, the aforementioned sale-deed cannot made basis for enhancement of the compensation.
4. On the other hand, Chaudhary Muhammad Anwar , Advocate, the learned counsel for the landowners strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that both the Courts below evaluated the evidence available on record in a legal manner , however , the learned Reference Judge failed to enhance adequate compensation which has rightly been enhanced by the learned High Court through the impugned judgm ent. He contended that the land of the landowners has been acquired for a valuable purpose and has the potential value. The claim of the landowner before the Collector was that the market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.50,00,000/- per kanal , but despite that the same was not properly determined by the Collector . He strongly argued that the appellant failed to file appeal against the judgment of the Reference Judge, therefore, the findings recorded by the Reference Judge on issue No.1, has attained finality . He added that altho ugh the respondents in black and white has not claimed specific compensation, however , while participating in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector they demanded the compensation at the rate of Rs.50,00,000/- per kanal . He maintained that the learned High Court passed well reasoned judgment which is not open for interference by this Court.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record along with the impugned judgment. The argument which forcefully argued by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court was that the reference application is hit by the mischief of section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition, but the Courts below failed to consider this important legal aspect of the case.
The record reveals that the learned Reference Judge after seeking objec tions from the appellant and others upon the reference application framed issues. Regarding the stance taken before this Court issue No.1 has also been framed by the Reference Judge which reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} The learned Reference Judge after hearing the parties decided the aforementioned issue against the appellant, herein, while recording the following findings:- "7. To materialize the issue, the non-petitioners didn't bring on record any documentary proof revealing, that pursuant to the notice issued under section 9(1) of the Act, the petitioner filed a claim to the compensation, which was contrary to his present claim enshrined in the reference. Hence, this issue is decided against the non-petitioners."
The record also reveals that the appellant has not challenged the judgment of the Reference Judge, before the High Court. In this way, the findings referred to hereinabove have attained finality , thus, it can safely be said that this argument is no more available to the appellant. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that against the judgment and decree of the Reference Judge the appellant filed appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed on the ground of competency . We failed to find anything on record in this regard, however , if the argument of the learned counsel is correct even then no benefit can be extended to the appellant as the dismissal order has not further been challenged before this Court. In this way the findings recorded by the Reference Judge on issue No.1, has attained finality .
6. While attending the other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned High Court on the basis of sale-deed, Exh.PF , has wrongly enhanced the compensation as the land subject of the said sale-deed is of commercial nature and situated near to road, whereas, the land in question is situated at far-flung area and also not adjacent to the road; we have carefully perused the record. In the case in hand, the landowners while filing the reference application has specifically mentioned that the acquired land is adjacent to the road and the same could be used for commercial purpose. The relevant ground of the reference application is reproduced here which reads as under: {{URDU TEXT}} It also appears from the record that the appellant and others while filing objections upon the reference application have not specifically denied the claim of the landowners and only mentioned that this ground requires evidence. It will be useful to reproduce here the relevant portion of the objections filed by the appellant and others which reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} Furthermore, it transpires from the record that the appellant has produced not an iota of evidence in support of the compensation determined by the Collector . On the other hand, the landowners in support of his claim produced one witness, namely , Muhammad Saghee r and also got recorded his statement as a witness. Moreover , as documentary evidence, the landowners placed on record the copy of award, Exh.P A, copy of Asamiwara , Exh.PB, affidavit, Exh.PC, copy of transfer order of plot No.571, Exh.PD, copy of Government notification dated 27.10.2008, Exh.PE and sale-deed, Exh.PF .
The witness produced by the landowners, Muhammad Sagheer , stated in his statement that the acquired land is adjacent to the road and situated in the municipal limits. One of the landowners also stated in his statement that the acquired land is adjacent to the road. For better appreciation the relevant portions of the statements are reproduced here which read as under:- Muhammad Sagheer , witness, stated that: {{URDU TEXT}} One of the landowners while recording the statement has stated that: {{URDU TEXT}} The statements of both the witnes ses to the extent of referred version have not been cross- examined by the other side and it is settled law that the portion of the statement of a witness which goes against the other party if not cross-examined is deemed admitted. In such state of affairs, we are justified to hold that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the land in question is located for away from the road and situated at far-flung area bears no footing. The sale- deed, Exh.PF , shows that from the village Anmb, where the acquired land is situated, 2 kanal 4 marla land was sold against the consider ation of Rs.40,00,000/-. Mere on the assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the land, the subject of the sale-deed, Exh.PF was of commercial nature as the same was adjacent to the road and the acquired land is away from the road, which is not supported by any evidence, it cannot be said that the sale-deed, Exh.PF , is not relevant to determine the market value of the land, especially , when the evidence produced by the landowners remained un-rebutted. The learned counsel for the appellant placed before this Court a copy of Akas Musawi in support of his claim, however , the record reveals that this document has not been produced before the trial Court as well as first appellate Court. As it is well established principle of law that the document which has not been tendered in evidence before the Courts below cannot for the first time be placed before this Court, therefore, we do not intend to consider the copy of Akas Musawi, at this stage. Reliance may be placed on a case reported as Syed Saleem Hussain Shah Gardazi v. Services and General Administration Department & 5 others [2009 SCR 565], wherein, this Court has held as under:- "7. It may be observed that attested copies of the documents which form part of public record are admissible in evidence. Such documents must be tendered in evidence before the trial Court so that the trial Court is able to express its wisdom upon the controversial issue in the light of such document. Any evidence oral or documentary can be looked into and discussed within the limits of pleadings of the parties. Admittedly the document which the appellant wants to bring on record was not part of the record in the High Court. This Court is Court of appeal and only those documents can be considered by this Court which were part of record in the High Court. New document cannot be allowed to be brought on record at appellate stage."
Keeping in view the evidence available on record, we are of the view that the learned High Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record has rightly enhanced the compensation and has not committed any illegality which may warrant any interference by this Court.
In view of above, we do not find any substance in this appeal, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.