SARDAR MUHAMMAD EJAZ KHAN, J. --- The captioned appeals have been directe d against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Reference Judge, Dadyal, Camp Mirpur , on 07.12.201 1.
2. As common questions of facts and law are involved in the captioned appeals , therefore, the same are being decided through this single judgment.
3. Common facts of the captioned appeals are that landowner filed reference application against award No. 03/LAC/07, dated 21.05.2007 pertaining to land Survey No. 2027/3, 2034/10-3, 2035/11-18, 2040/1-5, 2041/2-13 & 2042/2-4 total measuring 28 Kanals, 16 Marlas situated in Mozia Sonkiah, Tehsil & District Mirpur. It has been contended that the aforesaid land was acquired by the respondents for extension of Mirpur Model Town whereas Collector Land Acquisition assessed very meager compensation amount of Rs. 286044/77 per Kanal alongwith 14302/23 per Marla C.A.C. It has been alleged that when the notices under Sections 9 and 10 were issued by the Collector upon which the landowner filed objections on the ground that the market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs. 12,00,000/- per Kanal. It has been averred that the Collector Land Acquisition while assessing the compensation amount of the acquired land ignored the potential value, area location and future purposes of the same, hence, it has been prayed that minimum compensation amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- per Kanal of the acquired land may be fixed. On filing of reference application the respondents were summoned who appeared before the Court and filed objections. The learned District Judge/Reference Judge, Mirpur, framed issues and vide order dated 07.06.2009 the file was entrusted to Additional District Judge/Reference Judge, Dadyal, Camp Mirpur, who after recording evidence and hearing the parties partially enhanced the compensation amount from Rs.
284044/77 per Kanal to Rs. 11,00,000/- per Kanal vide impugned judgment & decree dated 07.12.2011. Feeling dissatisfied from the said judgment & decree landowner, appellant, herein, filed the instant appeal for further enhancement of compensation amount whereas respondents-appellants in cross appeal prayed for setting aside the same, hence, these appeals.
4. The learned counsel for respondents raised preliminary objections that the reference application filed by the agent Raja Muhammad Razzaq on behalf of principal Muhammad Liaqat, appellant, before the Reference Court was not competent because such powers for filing of reference were not specifically rendered to the attorney . The learned counsel raised next objection that the learned Additional District Judge/Reference Judge, Dadyal, had no powers to decide the reference application because the reference application was decided without jurisdiction by the Additional District Judge, Dadyal. The learned counsel contended that the compe nsation amount so fixed by the Collector is in accordance with law rather the learned Additional District Judge/Reference Judge has wrongly enhanced the compensation amount who also travelled beyond the jurisdiction, hence, the impugned judgment & decree is against law and facts which may be set aside. The learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon the following case-law:---
(i) [1995 SCR 2741];
(ii) [2005 MLD (AJ&K) 275]; and
(iii) [2018 SCR 1243].
5. The learned counsel for appellant, more or less, reiterated the grounds of appeal and argued that the power-of- attorney was given by the appellant, Muhammad Liaqat Ali, to his brother Raja Muhammad Razzaq as agent for performing such powers which were likely to be performed by principal pertaining to the land survey numbers mentioned above. The learned counsel emphasized that the learned Additional District Judge, Dadyal, decided the reference application who, has powers to hear and decide the matter being Reference Judge, hence, the Additional District Judge, Dadyal/Reference Judge was quite competent to adjudicate upon the matter. The learned counsel maintained that the impugned judgment & decree passed by the learned Referee Court is not in accordance with law because the compensation amount was not enhanced according to the market value of the acquired land, hence, it has been prayed for further enhancement of compensation amount as prayed in the reference application.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. As far as preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for respondents are concerned. First objection of the learned counsel for, the respondents that the power-of-attorney (Exh."PC') does not disclose any authority to which the reference application was filed by agent Raja Muhammad Razzaq on behalf of principal Muhammad Liaqat Ali carries no weight because from the contents of power-of-attorney it transpires that such powers were rendered by the principal to agent to perform such acts which had to be performed by the principal with regard to the survey numbers mentioned above. For Proper appreciation of the matter , (Exh."PC'") i.e. power-of-attorney is hereby reproduced as under:--- "This power -of-attorney made this fourteenth August 2004 by Mr. Mohammad Liaquat Ali 37 Provident Street Derby (here in after called the principal) witnessed as follows
(1) The principal hereby appoints his brother Raja Mohammad Razzaq son of Shahwali village and post office Akalgara District Mirpur Azad Kashmir Pakistan (herein after called the attorney) to be the attorney of the principal in his name and on his behalf and his act and deed or otherwise.
(2) V illage Sanqiah T eh. District Mirpur (AK)
Khasra No. 2027-13 Marley 2034-10 Kinal, 3 Marley 2035-1 1 Kinal, 18 Marley 2040-1 Kinal, 05 Marley 2041-2 Kind, 13 Marley 2040- 2 Kind, 4 Marley
(3) Generally to act hereby authorized in the same manner and as fully and effectively in all respects as the principal could have done if personally present.
(4) The principal hereby undertakes ratify everything which the attorney appointed and acts.
In witness whereof the principal has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and Delivered By the principal in presence of"
8. From deep perusal of para No. 3 of power-of-attorney (Exh."PC" ), it transpires that Raja Muhammad Razzaq was wholly competent to file reference application being agent on behalf of principal, Muhammad Liaquat Ali, and such authoritative powers were delegated with regard to land matter in issue in the reference application for which the intention, in the said power-of-attorney , of the principal is very much clear . Even otherwise, the principal who also issued rectification has not disowned the earlier power-of-attorney meaning thereby that at the time of filing reference application the attorney was wholly competent to perform the acts in absence of principal whereas contents of earlier power-of-attorney and subsequent rectification reveal that all the powers as had to be performed by the principal himself were delegated to the agent-attorney with regard to the acquired property , therefore. Raja Muhammad Razzaq was quite competent to file reference application and perform those acts which had to be performed by the principal himself and in this regard the case-law reported as [1995 SCR 274] & [2018 SCR 1243] referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents/appellants in cross appeal is not helpful and has no relevancy with the case in hand. My point of view finds support from case titled Khyam Films and another v.
Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd [1982 CLC (Lahore) 1275] wherein it has been opined as under:-- "In my opinion the fact that the person did or did not have authority can effectively be challenged only by the principal. If in spite of the objections taken the principal continues to recognize the authority of the agent to institute the suit I am inclined to think that this would amount to a rectification and the suit would still be a validly instituted suit."
9. The next objection of the learned coun sel for the respondents that the learned Additional District Judge, Dadyal, had no jurisdiction and powers to hear and decide the reference application under Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no substance because after the establishment of Courts of Additional District Judge in different units of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir , such powers were also delegated to Additional District Judges, vide Govt. notification dated 04.05.2007 meaning thereby that the learned Additional Distric t Judge, Dadyal, had have the powers to hear the reference application in view of scheme of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hence, the argument to that extent is hereby repelled while the case-law reported as 2005 MLD (AJ&K) 275 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable and is not applicable in the instant case.
10. Now coming towards the merits of the case, from perusal of record it shows that landowner produced oral account of witnesses namely Yar Muhammad, and attorney of appellant, Raja Muhammad Razzaq, entered into witness-box and got recorded his statement. In support of oral deposition, he produced documentary evidence (Exh."P A") i.e. a certified copy of award No. 03/LAC/2007 finalized on 21.05.2007 (Exh."PB") i.e. a certified copy of mutation of the said Mozia whereby land measuring 10 Kanals was transferred in lieu of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (one crore), through sale-deed dated 26.01.2007 (Exh."PC') i.e. power-of-attorney , (Exh."PD') i.e. a certified copy of registered-deed of Mozia Sonkiah dated 01.06.2005 to which land measuring 01 Kanal was transferred in lieu of Rs. 11,00,000/-, (Exh."PE") i.e. a certified copy of registered-deed dated 07.09.2005 taken place in the said Mozia through which land measuring 1/2 Marla was sold out in lieu of Rs. 4,00,000/- and (Exh."PE') i.e. a certified copy of registered-deed of said Mozia dated 13.12.2005 through which land measuring 02 Kanals was sold out in lieu of Rs. 34,00,000/-.
11. Attorney Muhammad Razzaq being witness deposed that at the time of award the land of the said Mozia being sold out in lieu of 15/16 lac per Kanal but no documentary) evidence has been produced to which it can be assumed at the time of award the market value of the acquired land was 15/16 lac. per Kanal. It is relevant to mention here that landowner prayed in reference application that Compensation amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- per Kanal of the acquired land may be fixed.
12. It is apt to state here that documentary evidence (Exh."PB") i.e. a copy of mutation through which land measuring 10 Kanals of the said Mozia was sold out in lieu of Rs. 10000000/- (one crore) which comes to Rs.
10,00,000/- per Kanal rather the same was executed after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and if (Exh."PD"), (Exh."PE") &, (Exh."PE") are considered while assessing the avera ge price of the same then the compensation amount so claimed in the reference application would be exceeded, hence, the, same cannot be fixed beyond the pleadings rather only the pivotal sale-deed (Exh."PD"), which can be considered for fair compensation amount through which land measuring 01 Kanal was sold out in lieu of Rs. 11,00,000/- through sale-deed dated 01.06.2005. As the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 31.05.2006 as such the said sale-deed was executed prior to the publication of the aforesaid notification.
Although the learned Referee Court relied upon (Exh."PB" & PD") and if both the documents are taken into consideration for determination of compensation amount yet the same is roundabout the amount as has been fixed by the learned Referee Court, hence, (Exh."PD") being pivotal documentary evidence can be considered for determination of fair price of the acquired land. Thus, the learned Referee Court committed no illegality and infirmity while enhancing the compensation amount of the acquired land in sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- per Kanal because of un-rebutted evidence.
13. In view of above, finding no force in the instant appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. A copy of this judgment shall be annexed alongwith other relevant file.