RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J. --- Through the titled appeal, the validity of the judgment and decree of the learned High Court dated 04.07.2018, has been challenged, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents, herein, has been accepted.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the build-up property , i.e. the houses of respondents herein, bearing Code Nos. M-151-A. M-151-B alongwith a store bearing Code No. M-145, were acquired by the Collector Land Acquisition vide award No. 287/2009, for Mangla Dam Raising Project. The Collector determined the compensation of the houses bearing Code No. M-151-A as Rs. 14,98,894/-, bearing Code No. M-151-B as Rs.
12,51,377/- and the store bearing code No. M-145 as Rs. 89,587/-. Feeling dissatisfied, the owners-respondents, herein, filed separate reference applications and claimed that the market value of the acquired houses and the store bearing code Nos. M-151-A, M-15 I-B and B-145, is Rs. 30,00,000/- Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively . The learned Reference Judge consolidated both the references and after necessary proceedings, through the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2010, enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,87,727/- and Rs. 2.25,248/- for the acquired houses bearing Code No. M-151-A and M-151-B, respectively . Feeling dissatisfied, the landowners approached the High Court by filing an appeal. The learned High Court while accepting the appeal further enhanced the compensation in the following terms:--- "In view of above, the appeal stands accepted and the appellants are declared entitled to receive Rs. 22,00,000/- compensation of house bearing code No. 151-A, Rs. 17,50,000/- to the house bearing code No. M-151-B and Rs.
1,50,000/- to the store bearing code No. M-145 alongwith 15% CAC."
The judgment of the learned High Court is subject of the instant appeal.
3. Mr. Javaid Najam-us-Saqib, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is based on non-appreciation of the record which is not maintainable. He added that the respondents failed to prove their case by producing documentary as well as oral evidence but despite that the Courts below enhanced the compensation without any justification. While referring to the statement of one of the respondents, Muhammad Mumtaz, the learned counsel submitted that the said witness in his statement deposed that the houses were built in the year 1990, whereas, the compensation has been determined and awarded according to the rates prevailing in the year 2005. He further added that the Building Replacement Cost Valuation (BRCV) was prepared by the joint team of the Civil Engineers, after thoroughly examining the quality and quantity of the material used in the construction of houses and all other relevant factors in the light of the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents, herein, have not challenged the propriety of the BRVC and the learned Reference Judge enhanced the compensation amount mere on the pretext of inflation and devaluation of currency and price hike and the learned High Court committed the same illegality while making further enhancement in the compensation. The learned counsel prayed for accepta nce of appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment.
4. Conversely , Mr. Muhammad Khalil Ghazi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is perfectly legal. He submitted that the Collector Land Acquisition did not determine the compensation himself rather he relied upon the report/assessment prepared by WAPDA who is beneficiary and awarded a meager compensation to the owners against the settled principle of law. The learned counsel forcefully argued that the respondents in support of their claim produced not only the documentary evidence but also produced the oral evidence which remai ned un-rebutted, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the owners failed to prove their claim, has no substance. The learned counsel lastly submitted that in the matter in hand the compensation was assessed prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hence, the same has no value in the eye of law .
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record alongwith the impugned judgment. In the matter in hand, the Collector Land Acquisition assessed and determined the compensation of the houses bearing code No. M-151- A as Rs. 15,98,484/-, code No. M-151-B as Rs. 12,51,377/- and the store bearing code No. M-145 as Rs. 89,787/-, on the basis of building replacement cost valuation prepared by a joint team constituted by the concerned authorities, whereas, the claim of the owners in the reference applications is that the market value of the acquired built-up property is not less than Rs. 30,00,000/-, Rs.
25,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-, respectively . The owners-respondents in support of their claim brought on record the estimates of the acquired houses etc., prepared by a Government Contractor , Abdul Ghafoor . The concerned Contractor got recorded his statement as a witness and supported the estimate prepared by him; the other witness produced by the owners, Ikram Hussa in, also fully supported the owners' version. The appellants had the opportunity to bring on record the evidence to justify the amount assessed by the concerned authorities and to contradict the stance taken by the respondents but no such step was taken by them. The impugned judgment shows that the learned High Court has not 'considered the estimates produced in evidence by the respondents on the sole ground that this Court in the case reported as Qurban Hussain & another v. WAPDA & others [2017 SCR 524], has held that the estimate prepared by a private person/Engineer cannot be relied upon safely . In the case titled WAPDA v. Muhammad Ismail (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2018, decided on 22.03.2018), same proposition as is involved in the present case, came under consideration of this Court, wherein, this Court has held that if the Civil Engineers of the joint team prepared a wrong estimate in any case, that cannot be followed blindly mere on the strength of the findings recorded by this Court in Qurban Hussain's case (supra ), moreover , the judgment of this Court in which any question of law is decided or the same is based upon or enunciates a principle of law is binding upon the subordinate Courts, however , in respect of the facts of the case the Court s have to decide each and every case on the basis of the material availabl e on record. The relevant findings recorded in, the judgment (supra ) read asunder:--- "It may be observed here that the judgm ent of this Court in which any question of law is decided or the same is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, no doubt is binding upon the subordin ate Courts, however , in respect of the facts of the case the Courts have to decide each and every case on the basis of the material available on record. Reference may be made to a recent judgment delivered in a case titled Muhammad Azad Khan & others v.
WAPDA & others (Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2017, decided on 15.01.2018), wherein, this Court held that:--- '6. We have paid our utmost attention to the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. It appears that the impugned judgment is based upon the reference case reported as Murawat Khan and another v. Collector Land Acquisition & others [2013 SCR 1224] but the peculiar facts, circumstances and evidence produced in this case has not been properly appreciated. No doubt the decisions of the apex Court are binding upon the subordinate Courts but under the provisions. of Section 42-B of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 the binding nature of the judgment is only to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, the Courts have to decide each and every case on the basis of the material including the pleadings and evidence of the parties It may be observed here that in Qurban Hussain's case, referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has not relied upon the estimate prepared by the private person and given the preference to the building replacement cost valuation prepared by the joint team of the Civil Engineers, however , it does not mean that if the Civil Engineers of the joint team prepared a wrong estimate in any case, the Courts may blindly follow the same mere on the strength of the findings recorded by this Court in Qurban Hussain's case."
After going through the judgment (supra ), it can safely be said that the learned High Court was not justified to discard the evidence on the strength of the findings recorded in Qurban Hussain's case. The perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned High Court further shows that the same is also self-contradictory , as at one hand, the learned High Court discarded the evidence produced by the owners but on the other hand amazingly enhanced the amount of compensation. It was enjoined upon the High Court to decide the case on the strength of evidence brought on the record and if the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondents failed to prove their case by producing evidence, then there was no occasion to accept the appeal and enhance the compensation. In such state of affairs, our view is that the impugned judgment being self-contradictory is not maintainable and to meet the ends of justice the remand of the case is justified.
Resultantly , this appeal stands accepted and while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree the case is remanded to the High Court with the direction to decide the same afresh within a period of two months positively after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the parties. No order as to costs.