GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J.---The titled appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2017, passed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Civil Appeal No,400 of 2008.
2. The precise facts forming the background of the captioned appeal are that the Collector Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Circle Mirpur, acquired land measuring 669 kanal, 17 marla, including land of the appellants, herein, measuring 10 kanal 4 marls, bearing survey Nos,27 and 28, situated in village Ballah, Tehsil and District Mirpur, vide Award No,46/2006, dated 28.12.2006. The Collector categorized the land of the appellants, herein, as Mera Awal and determined the compensation of the same as 5,25,000/- per kanal besides 15% Compulsory Acquisition Charges. Feeling aggrieved from the said determination of the compensation by the Collector, the appellants, herein filed a reference before the learned Reference Judge, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur on 18.09.2007. The appellants/land-owners produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their claim. It was averred that the land is situated within the municipal limits of Mirpur and has commercial and potential value but the Collector has awarded compensation without inking into consideration this aspect of the matter. It was further averred that the market value of the land is not less than 1,00,00,000/- (one crore) but the Collector while considering the sale-deeds of an adjacent village has awarded the nominal compensation arbitrarily. The reference was contested by the other side by filing objections, whereby, the claim of the appellants, herein, was refuted. The learned reference Judge, after necessary proceedings, vide judgment and decree dated 17.09.2008. accepted the reference partly and enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of Rs,6,25,000/- per kanal besides 15% Compulsory Acquisition Charges. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and decree of the learned Reference Judge, the appellants, herein, filed an appeal before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court on 04.12.2008. The learned High Court after hearing the parties has dismissed the appeal through the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.03.2017.
3. Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants argued that the acquired land is situated within the Municipal limits of Mirpur and can be utilized for commercial purpose. The learned Advocate argued that while determining the compensation of the land in question, the Collector has not considered its potential value in its true perspective and determined the compensation arbitrarily. The learned Advocate further argued that as the land is situated in village Ballah where various Government Buildings including the buildings of High Court, Supreme Court and lower Judiciary have been constructed. hence, it was enjoined upon the Collector as well as the learned Reference Judge and the High Court to award fair compensation of the Acquired land keeping in view its commercial nature and potential value but the Courts below miserably failed to take into consideration the same. The learned Advocate further argued that the reasons listed by the learned High Court for not accepting the documentary evidence is erroneous because those documents were liable to be considered in view of the judgments passed by this Court in the cases reported as Marawat Khan and 4 others v. Collector Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Zone-I, Mirpur and 2 others (2013 SCR 1224) and Maqsood Bibi and 6 others v.
Collector, Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project (Zone-I) and 2 others (2013 SCR 973). The learned Advocate further argued that the sale-deed which has been executed prior or soon after the notification under section 4 is liable to be considered and the valuation table is also a good piece of evidence which cannot be brushed aside. The learned Advocate further argued that the Collector has himself determined the compensation through the valuation table as 22,00,000/-per kanal, therefore, the Courts below fell in error while not awarding the fair compensation to the appellants, herein. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate placed reliance on a case reported as WAPDA through Legal Advisor Wapda v. Anser Mehmood and others (2017 YLR 445).
The learned Advocate further placed reliance on some unreported cases titled Ch. Muhammad Siddique and others v. Azad Govt. and others (Civil Appeal No,25, decided on 15.07.2011).
Muhammad Hussain v. WAPDA and others (247 of 2010, decided on 23.01.2017), Muhammad Hussain v. WAPDA and others (Civil Appeal No,166 of 2008, decided on 23.01.2017).
4. Conversely, Ch. Liaqat Afzal, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the judgments passed by the Courts below are perfectly justified on the basis of documentary evidence. The learned Advocate argued that the appellants, herein, have produced sale-deed exhibit 'PC' through which the land measuring 2 kanal, 3-1/2 marla was transferred for 47,50,000/-.
The teamed Advocate further argued. that another document relied upon the appellants, herein, was exhibit 'PD', sale-deed dated 11.06.2005, which was executed after 5 months of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and a small piece of land measuring 8 sarsai along with a house was transferred for Rs,1,80,000/-, through the same. The learned Advocate further argued that another sale-deed exhibit 'PE' referred to by the appellants was executed 4 years before the issuance of notification under section 4, hence, could not be considered. The learned Advocate further argued that valuation table cannot be considered as sole criteria for assessment of the compensation as has been opined in a recent judgment of this Court. The learned Advocate submitted that the sale-deeds referred to and relied upon by the appellants were not considerable under sections 23 and 24 read with Rule 10(1)(iii)(A)(B)(C) of the Land Acquisition Act. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate placed reliance on the cases titled Mazhar Hussain v.
Collector Land Acquisition and others [Civil Appeal No,25 of 2014, instituted on 13.12.2016 and decided on 25.10.2017] and Kaneez Bi v. Azad Govt. and others [Civil Appeal No,107 of 2015, instituted on 17.06.2015, decided on 16.06.2017].
In the 1st Case referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, it was observed that tendering of sale-deeds in evidence is not sufficient until and unless the land-owners substantiate that the location, nature or potential value of the land sold through the sale-deeds and the acquired land is the same.
In Kaneez Bi's case supra, it was observed by this Court that mere on the ground that the sale- deeds produced in Ch. Muhammad Siddique's case and the case in hand are the same is not a valid ground to enhance the compensation. It was further observed that mere tendering of the sale-deeds in evidence is not sufficient for enhancement of the compensation until and unless comparison is not proved.
4. We have heard the teamed Advocates for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The land belonging to the appellants, herein, situated in village Ballah, Tehsil and District Mirpur was acquired through award No,46/2006, dated 28.12.2006. The Collector determined the compensation of the land belonging to the appellants, herein, for its kind Mera Awal as Rs,5,25,000/- per kanal. The appellants, herein were not satisfied from the said determination of the compensation and filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned Reference Judge Mangla Dam Raising Project on 19.09.2007. The learned Reference Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs,5,25,000/- to Rs,6,25,000/- per kanal besides 15% Compulsory Acquisition Charges. The contention of the learned Advocate that the Courts below have not considered the commercial and market value of the land in its true-perspective, is devoid of any force. Although some of the land in village Ballah is situated within the Municipal limits and has been utilized for construction of the Government buildings including the buildings of Supreme Court and High Court but from the perusal of the evidence lead by the appellants, herein, it does not transpire that the acquired land belonging to the appellants, herein, is also a part of that land.
In the statement of the witnesses, no comparison has been given in this regard. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants that in the cases referred to and relied upon by him, this Court has considered the sale-deeds which were executed soon after or before issuance of the notification under section 4, is correct, but it has not been proved that facts of those cases are similar and the rule of law laid down therein is equally applicable to the case in hand. So far as the precedental value of the judgment is concerned, It may be stated that the rule of law laid down in the precedent is only attracted when the circumstances of the case are similar. The evidence recorded in a civil case cannot be considered for the judgment of another case until and unless the cases were consolidated and tried as such by the Court below. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that valuation table was liable to be considered because the Collector has himself fixed the price of the land to the tune of Rs,11,0,000/- per marla. It has been held by this Court in various judgments that valuation table alone is not sufficient to determine the market value of the land until and unless other cogent evidence is not adduced by the parties. The learned Reference Judge has discussed the evidence led by the appellants, herein, in para No,16 of the judgment. It may be observed here that the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in this case on 27.01.2005. The appellants, herein, has relied upon the sale-deed exhibit 'PD' which has been executed on 11.06.2005. This sale-deed though was nearest in time but has rightly not been considered by the learned Reference Judge as well as the High Court.
Through this sale-deed the land measuring 8 sarsai was transferred for Rs,1,80,000/-. The reason for discarding this document is that a small piece of the land along with a house has been transferred through the same, therefore, the price mentioned in the said sale-deed cannot be made basis for enhancement of the compensation. The sale-deed exhibit 'PE' has been executed on 07.06.2000, through which 11,marla land has been transferred for Rs,15,42,000/-. Again it is a small piece of the land and it has not been proved that the acquired land is situated in the same vicinity, hence, has rightly not been considered by the Courts below. The position has also not been clarified by the witnesses of the appellants as well as one of the appellant who appeared as witnesses before the Court. Another sale-deed exhibit 'PC' has been referred to and relied upon by the Appellants through'which 2 kanal, 3-1/2 marla land, situated in village Ballah has been transferred for Rs,47,50,000/-. This sale-deed has also been executed after issuance of the notification, under section 4(1), hence, has rightly not been considered. In absence of the comparison as well as cogent evidence, the cases referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be considered. The reasonable compensation has already been enhanced by the learned Reference Judge on the basis of sketchy evidence. Further enhancement in the compensation on the basis available evidence is not justified. The enhancement neither on the basis of the judgment rendered in some cases cannot be claimed nor is justified until and unless it is shown through cogent evidence that the acquired land is situated in the same vicinity as well as of the same commercial and potential value. No doubt a part of Village Ballah is of high potential value but it cannot be said that the portion of the land which has been acquired now for upraising of the Mangla Dam and which is far away from the main city has the same commercial and potential value. In number of cases this Court has held that commercial and potential value of the land can vary for being located at a distance of yards. The learned Advocate for the other side has rightly relied upon Mazhar Hussain's case supra, wherein, at page 8, para 5 of the report it has been observed as under:-- In a number of pronouncements this Court has held that tendering of sale-deeds in evidence is not sufficient until the landowners substantiate that the location, nature or potential value of the land sold through sale-deeds and the acquired land is the same. Reference may be made on a recent unreported judgment titled Kaneez Bi v. Azad Government and others (Civil Appeal No,107 of 2015, decided on 17.06.2017), wherein, while dealing with the proposition it has been held that:-- It may be observed here that mere on the ground that the sale-deeds produced in Ch. Muhammad Siddique's case and the case in hand are the same is not a valid ground to enhance the compensation. In a number of pronouncements this Court has held that tendering of sale- deeds in evidence is not sufficient until the landowner substantiates that the location, nature or potential value of the land sold through sale-deeds and the acquired land is the same, therefore, without considering the point; whether in the case in hand the landowner proved that the acquired land of the landowner was of same location, kind, nature etc. as the land sold through the sale- deeds or under consideration in Ch. Muhammad siddique's case or not, the High Court was not justified to make the enhancement in the compensation.'
As in the instant case the appellants failed to substantiate that the location, nature or potential value of the land told through sale-deeds and the acquired land is the same, therefore, these sale- deeds are not helpful to the appellants. In such circumstances, it can safely be said that he appellants failed to prove their claim. The learned Reference Judge, keeping in view the evidence available on record, has already enhanced the adequate compensation; hence, further enhancement is not justified."
The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that compensation cannot be enhanced on the basis of surmises and conjectures and for enhancement in the compensation, a landowner has to prove his case in light of the provisions contained in sections 32 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The upshot of the above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.