JOHAR ALI, J. By this common judgment/order we intend to dispose of these three Civil First Appeals bearing C.F.A. No. 83 of 2020, C.F.A. No. 85 of 2020 and C.F.A. No.84 of 2020 which has arisen out of Judgment/Decree dated 26-10-2020 in Reference Petition No. 24 of 2016 passed by learned referee Judge/District Judge Gilgit against which three separate Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Respondents.
2. Brief fact gathered from record of the case are that feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award No. DK-1 (AMPHARY )/2016/201-02 dated 29-11-2016, petitioner/respondent has filed Reference Petition No. 24/2016 for enhancement of compensation award of acquired land of Petitioner/Respondent measuring 1 Kanal 12 Marlas under Khasra No. 4208/17, mutation No. 2954 situated within the Municipal Limits of Gilgit City, for construction of playground with the plea that Collector Gilgit/Appellant No.2 has passed the impugned award to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/- per kanal which is against the prevailing of market rates/potential value of acquired land. Petitioner has received the compensation under protest with the contention that the proceeding under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was started on 11.03.2010 and compensation amount was fixed at that time Rs. 16,00,000/- per kanal while the award has been passed in the year 2016. In the year 2015 the Provisional Government had revised market value of land vide Notification No. DK-1(1)/2015 dated 25-06-2015 wherein the rate of commercial land situated at Amphary Gilgit was enhanced from 16,00,000/- per kanal to 55,00,000/-per Kanal, on the basis of Notification for enhancement dated 25-06-2015, hence the Respondents/Petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation of the acquired land to the tune of Rs.55,00,000/- per Kanal along with 8% compound interest.
3. Appellants/Respondents contested that Reference Petition by filing their joint Replication wherein they have denied the claim of the Petitioner with the plea that Appellant No. 2/Collector Gilgit has passed the Award in accordance with law, by compliance of all mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and codal formalities. Petitioners have received the entire compensation amount without any objection despite service of notice under sections 4 and 9 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They further averred in their joint Replication that Petitioners/Respondents have already been paid commercial rates of their land which was actually cultivable land. They further contended that the lands of Petitioners/Respondents were acquired vide Notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 11-03-2010 and compensation amount was paid to the Petitioners/Respondents according to the market value/rates fixed in the year 2010, as such Petitioners/Respondents are not entitled for compensation awarded at the revised rate of 25-06- 2015.
4. The learned Court on the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties has framed the following 12 Issues;
1. Whether the land of the petitioner is situated within municipal limits of Gilgit city? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner raised objections against the notice under section 5-A Land Acquisition Act? OPP
3. Whether respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have obtained declaration under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act 1894? OPP.
4. Whether the petitioner raised objections against notice under section 9 Land Acquisition Act?
OPP.
5. Whether respondent No. 2 passed the impugned award without considering and deciding the objection of the petitioner which is against the provision of Land Acquisition Act 1894? OPP.
6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of his acquired land at the rate of revised notified rates issued vide Notification No. DK-1(1)/ 2015 dated 25th January, 2015? OPP
7. Whether the reference petition is not maintainable under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.? OPR
8. Whether reference petition is within time? OPR
9. Whether the petitioner is not entitled for enhancement of compensation according to notified rates date 25-06-2015 whereas during acquisition of land the notified rates of 2015 were not applicable? OPR
10. Whether before passing of the award legal requirements were completed with due notices and award was passed according to fixed government rates? OPR
11. Whether the acquired land was situated at river belt area but the collector had paid compensation generally on the basis of commercial? OPR
12. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for? OPP
5. Out of 12 Issues the burden of proof of Issues Nos. 1 to 6 are upon to the shoulder of Petitioners/Respondents and Issue Nos. 7 to 12 are upon the shoulder of the Appellants/Respondents. In Order to proof of Issues Nos. 1 to 6 the Petitioners/Respondents have relied' on their own statement as well as documentary evidence Exh-P/1 to Exh-P/10 and closed their evidence, while the Appellants/Respondents have examined five DWs to proof of Issues Nos. 7 to 12 and closed their evidence.
6. After completion of the proceedings and hearing of arguments the learned trial Court Decreed the Reference Petition under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide Judgment/Decree dated 26-10-2020.
7. Being dissatisfied from the Judgment/Decree dated 26.10.2020 passed by the learned Referee Judge/ District Judge Gilgit the Applicants/Respondents have filed the instant Civil First Appeal before this Court.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General for the Appellants/Respondents contended that the learned District Judge/Referee Judge Gilgit has passed the impugned Judgment/Decree in favour of Respondents/Petitioners without any justification and against the fact and law. He further argued that the compensation of the acquired land had been paid to the Petitioners/Respondents in excess to prevailing market rates of the area. The revised rates dated 25-06-2015 are not applicable to the acquired land of Petitioners/Respondents because at the time of issuance of section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the said revised rates were not applicable for the acquire- ment of commercial land of Petitioner in the year 2010 and Award of the acquired land is prepared on the basis of Notification under section 4 of Land. Acquisition Act, 1894 of year 2010. He further contended that the Appellants/Respondents have issued all mandatory Notices regarding objections etc. but the Petitioners/Respondents have failed to file any objection to the notices issued by Appellants/Respondents. He finally prayed for setting aside the Judgment/ Decree dated 26-10-2020 passed by the learned Referee Judge/ District Judge Gilgit by accepting the instant Appeal.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents/Petitioners has controverted the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the Appellants/ Respondents and supported the impugned Judgment/Decree passed by the learned Referee Judge/District Judge Gilgit. The learned counsel for the Petitioners/ Respondents further argued that Petitioners are legally entitled to get compensation of the acquired land amounting to Rs.5500000/- per Kanal as per Notification dated 25-06-2015 issued by Appellant/Respondent No.2. He further argued that the Appellant No.2/Collector Gilgit has passed the impugned Award at the fixed rate of acquired land Rs.1600000/- per Kanal in accordance of Notification issued in the year 2010, while the Award has been passed in the year, 2016. After revised of rates in the year, 2015 which is against the Notification dated 15-06-2015 as well as the mandatory provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He lastly prayed for dismissing of the instant Appeal.
10. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available record.
11. Admittedly, the commercial land of petitioner measuring 1 Kanal 12 Marlas land under Khasra No. 42018/17, Mutation No. 2954 situated within the limits of Municipal Area of Gilgit City is acquired in the year 2010. It is also admitted fact that after issuing notice under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 2010 the answering Respondents/Appellants have not taken any steps regarding the preparation of the award of acquired land till the year 2016, in the meantime Appellants/Respondents have enhanced the rates vide Exh-P/10 according to the notification EX- P/10 the commercial land of local limits of the Municipal Area is enhanced from 16,00,000/- to 55,00,000/-per Kanal in the year 2015.
12. We have noted that it is mentioned in the Ex-P/10 notification dated 25-06-2012 that the newly revised rates will be applicable for the development Project of ADP 2015-16 and onward but the same is against the mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 it is evident from EX-P/10 that in the year 2016 at the time/proceedings of passing of award the market value of acquired land was increased from 16,00,000/- to 55,00,000/-, while the Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 2010 while the award was passed in the year 2016 after lapse of more than six years. Furthermore, according to the mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Appellant/Respondent No.2 is legally bound to prepare the Award according to the market value, potential value of the acquired land, during the preparation of Award. It is admitted fact that Award was prepared in the year, 2016 and Appellants/Respondents have revised the market rates of the compensation- in the year, 2015 vide Notification No. DK-1 (1)/2015 dated 25-06-2015. Therefore, Petitioners/ Respondents are entitled to get the compensation of their acquired lands according to revise rate, market rate, potential value of acquired land in the year, 2016 during preparation of Award.
13. That the Judgment/Decree passed by the learned Referee Judge/District Judge Gilgit is well reasoned and is result of correct appreciation of documentary evidence Exh-P/1 to Exh-P/10 and oral evidence adduced by the Petitioner as well as Appellants/Respondents as well as relevant law applicable to the case in hand. The learned Referee Judge/District Judge Gilgit has not committed any illegality or irregularity while passing the Judgment/Decree dated 26-10-2020, warranting interference of this Court by invoking its Appellate Jurisdiction.
14. The upshot of above discussion is that C.F.As. Nos.83/2020, 84/2020 and 85/2020 are hereby dismissed with no Order as to costs and Judgment/Decree passed by learned Referee Judge/District Judge Gilgit dated 26-10-2020 is maintained. Certified true copy of this Judgment/Decree be placed in C.F.A. Nos.84/2020 and 85/2020. File be consigned to record after due completion.