' FAZAL ELAHI KHAN, J.-This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur dated 12-9-1979, whereby he rejected the objection petition of the appellants referred to him by the Land Acquisition Collector.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Official Gazette on 3-5-1967 for the acquisition of the entire estate of Village Jora Pind, Tehsil Haripur, including the Village Abadi, for a public purpose namely Tarbela Dam reservoir area.
3. After the completion of all the formalities and publication of the relevant notification, objections were called for, if any from the proprietors of the village. After hearing the representatives of the acquiring department and the owners of the land who appeared in response to the notices issued an award was made by the learned Collector on 27-9-1973.
4. Dissatisfied with the valuation fixed in the award for their agricultural land as well as built up property Abdul Hakim and others, the present appellants allegedly made an objection petition before the learned Acquisition Collector disputing the assessment of compensation made by the learned Collector with a prayer to refer the dispute to the learned Acquisition Judge as provided under the law for proper adjudication. This objection petition was allegedly made to him on 10-12- 1973 which is registered in the Court of the learned Acquisition Judge on 10-5-1977.
5. In response to the notices issued to the respondents, the learned Collector filed written statement raising several legal and factual objections to the reference as well as the objection petition. These objections are reflected in the issues framed by the learned Additional District Judge, which are as under :- "(1) Whether the objection petition is not referred to the Court by the concerned Collector, if so, its effect ? 0. P. R.
(2) Whether objectors have received the compensation amount without protest, if so, with what effect ?
(3) Whether the objectors have failed to respond to the notice under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, if so, its effect ?
0. P. R.
(4) Whether the objectors are entitled to the compensation amount which was not assessed by respondent No. 1, if so, how much? 0. P. D.
(5) Whether the objection petition is within time ? 0. P.
0.
(6) Relief.
6. Both the parties produced their evidence and after the close of the evidence and hearing the parties, the objection petition referred to above was dismissed by the learned Judge vide his order dated 12-9-1979.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Acquisition Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the legality and otherwise of the reference having been made to him by the learned Acquisition Collector. That the finding of the Court on Issues Nos. 1 and 4 was, therefore unwarranted. He also contends that though in paragraph No, 10 of the objection petition, objection with respect to the classification of land was specifically raised, the learned Acquisition Judge failed to give any finding which amounts to refusal to , exercise his jurisdiction in this case. Reliance was placed on Sh. Muhammad Saeed and others v. Deputy Commissioner, Karachi , wherein it has been held that the referee Judge has no jurisdiction to go beyond the reference made to him. The objection of the respondent challenging the authority of the person who allegedly received the objection petition in the year, 1973 and the genuineness of the reference application are not to be adjudicated upon by the referee Court. It was also alleged that illegalities, irregularities or negligence committed or shown by the Acquisition Department or their office cannot deprive the petitioners of their legal right of adjudication of their objection petition on merits. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on PLD 1978 SC 142, PLD 1975 Lah. 7, PLD 1962 Lah.
92.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that objection petition has been brought into the referee Court in a fraudulent manner inasmuch as that on 10-12-1973 i,e, the date on which the objection petition was allegedly presented to the Land Acquisition Collector Raja Muhammad Aslam, whose signature allegedly appeared over it was not a Collector Acquisition on the relevant date, in fact he was exercising the power of Collector Acquisition from 1- 4-1974 to 23-9-1976. He further contended that in spite of efforts having been made to find out this objection petition is not entered in the relevant register maintained for this purpose. Furthermore there is no diary number of this objection petition nor the same is entered in the reference application though in the normal course and procedure the same should have been there. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that though all these defects were available on the face of the record and have been agitated before the evidence could be recorded no effort was made to show that Raja Muhammad Aslam was competent at the relevant time to receive the objection petition rather to prove that the signature over the objection petition and the reference application are in his hand.
9. Before going into the merits of the case and in view of the arguments addressed by both the learned counsel for the parties on the technical and legal aspect of the case we are in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, in principle, that the objection petition if received by the acquisition collector and referred to the acquisition Judge1 becomes an undisputed document and the Courts are bound to look into the matter referred to it for adjudication. We are also in respectful agreement with the law, laid down that no person is to suffer on the wrong committed by the Court or its officials. However in order to attract the dictum laid down in those authorities, it is all the most necessary for the objectors to prove that the reference pending before the learned Acquisition Judge was not a forged manipulation and fraudulent document. Specially when such an objection is made at its earliest. On the facts of this case it was incumbent upon the appellants to have proved by cogent legal evidence that there had been a valid objection petition presented to an authorized person and referred to by a competent authority to the learned Additional District Judge. In the present case though the objection petition was allegedly made in the year 1973 no explanation is forthcoming for the delay in making reference to the learned Additional District Judge till 1977. Similarly the alleged signatures of Raja Muhammad Aslam bearing the date of receipt under the seal as 10-12-1973 has also a date just under the alleged signature as 24.8 "year is not given". The signature and the words 24.8 are in the same ink while the date 10-12-1973 under the seal is in a different hand and different ink.
10. Over and above the reference application is also signed by the same gentleman, under whose signatures the objection petition was allegedly received for the first time, and it, bears the dates 24-8-1976 24.8 under the signature, showing the receipt, and 24-8-1976 under the signature over the reference application are in one ink and one handwriting. Similarly both the signatures are also in the same ink and in the same handwriting. The only difference is that in the date of receipt year is not given while in the reference application there is addition of 76 as the year.
11. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the services of Raja Muhammad Aslam were terminated as he was acting in fraudulent manner, is not supported by any documentary evidence excepting the oral evidence with regard to the termination of his services. It is also in the evidence of Raja Muhammad Din, Head Clerk, examined as R. W. 1 that after the receipt of the objection petition by the Collector the same is entered in a proper register maintained for this purpose and thereafter the "diary" number is entered on the objection petition.
The diary number in the present case is missing. The objection petition is not entered in the relevant register. The reference is forwarded to the Acquisition Judge under a covering letter bearing the register number. On the covering letter in the instance case register number is not given nor there appears any despatch number over it. He brought the original diary for the year 1973 in which the present objection petition is not entered. Objection was raised in the cross- examination, to the relevant diary produced before the Court, that the same is not in a proper form but is a register of the electricity department. However, no effort was made by the objectors/appellants to prove otherwise to negative the procedure for the receipt of the objection petition as referred to by this witness in his statement in Court. The learned counsel for the respondents however, drew or attention to the stamp affixed on the objection petition which bears 21-11-1973 as the date of its purchase and that the objection petition is signed by an Advocate, however from the perusal of the same, the learned Advocate has not given any date under his signature.
12. From all what has been stated above we are satisfied that the observations made by the learned Additional District Judge in this respect are B well-founded. Every Court has inherent power to go into these questions where forgery or fraud is alleged.
13. Even on merits the objectors have got no case. In the objection petition the objectors have alleged that the boundary walls constructed by them for the protection of their agricultural land and houses have not been taken into consideration at all in assessing the compensation. He also contended that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 103, 104 and 286 was Chahi type of land having its source of irrigation from a tube-well installed in Khasra No, 490. The learned Acquisition Collector did not award the compensation for the Chahi type of land but assessed it as Maira type of land.
He is also aggrieved that the learned Acquisition Judge has failed to give his decision with regard to this objection though specifically raised.
14. With regard to the first contention the learned counsel relied on the statement of Inam Ullah Khan, Municipal Engineer, Town Committee, Peshawar (the then overseer of Town Committee, Haripur) examined as 0. W. 2 and estimates of costs Exh.
0. W. 2/2 to Exh.
0. W. 2/26 prepared by him wherein he has given the alleged measurement of the boundary walls and has worked out its compensation.
15. On perusal of these alleged measurements, there is no basis for the same as according to him he visited the spot all alone without associating the representative of the acquiring department, and in the absence of the Patwari. He alleged to have mentioned the relevant Khasra Numbers therein in the estimates at the instance of the various land-owners though in fact there is nothing on the record to show that the statement of any of such owners was recorded. Rather he admitted that he did not record the statement of any of the land owners on the spot. It is also important to note that these alleged estimates of costs were never produced before any competent authority nor before the Collector at that time or at the time of making the objection petition. These were allegedly prepared in-the month of February, 1974 and produced in Court in the year, 1977.
According to 0. W. 6 Taj Muhammad objector the length of the boundary walls of his property was 3 (1/2_ miles while the length of the boundary walls of the other peoples was not more than 10 to 12 paces. He further stated that the land owned by him jointly with other co-owners, total measures 64 Kanals in which his share is about 19 Kanals. He also admitted in the cross-examination while examined on 23-11-1978 that he took Inam Ullah overseer about 4/5 years back to the spot.
Furthermore in the circumstances when the entire estate in question has submerged in the Tarbela reservoir these estimates of costs produced subsequently were rightly rejected by the learned Acquisition Judge. The learned Additional District Judge has advanced very cogent reasons supported by the evidence in rejecting these estimates of costs and the statement of Inam Ullah Khan, Overseer. These reasons needs no reproduction.
16. With regard to the classification of land though the objection bas been specifically raised the learned Additional District Judge has failed to give his finding. However as evidence on this point has been produced by the parties we proceed to determine this objection, as permissible under Order XLI, rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, in this appeal.
17. The only evidence produced by the objectors is the copy of Khasra Girdawari for the period starting from Rabi 1967 to Kharif 1970 which is Exh.
0. W. 3/2. According to the learned counsel, the aforementioned three Khasra Numbers are irrigated from Khasra No, 45 where allegedly tube-well is installed. Though earlier it has been alleged that this land is irrigated from Khasra No, 490, which is far away and across the village Abadi, as shown in the Aks Shajra Kishtwar Exh. O. W. 3/3. However even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Khasra No, 45, which is adjacent to Khasra Nos. 103 and 104 in question is accepted to be correct the same is not borne out by the revenue record. In Khasra No, 45 there is shown a Ghair Mumkin Chah but at the same time there is entry that the same is "Uftada". Furthermore Khasra No, 45 measuring 20 Kanals 4 Marlas is throughout shown as Banjar Qadeem to the extent of 19 Kanals 12 Marlas. The other portion of this Khasra Number measures 10 Marlas is Banna while 2 Marlas as -Ghair Mumkin Chah Uftadi. This land is shown as Banjar Qadeem till October, 1970, the available record on the file.
17. Furthermore all these Khasra Nos. i,e, 79, 103, 104 and 286 are entered as Ghair Mumkin Maira continuously. Had there been any well existing in working order in Khasra No, 45 first of all the same should have been utilized for the irrigation of this very Khasra No, of which 19 Kanals 12, Marlas is shown as Banjar Qadeem. In this view of the matter we are of their firm view that the classification of the land was perfectly correct. The benefit of its future potentiality as irrigated land could not be extended to the disputed land in the circumstances of this case.
18. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. No order as to costs. P D 1969 Kar. 315