' FAZAL ELAN! KHAN, J.-These two Regular First Appeals, i. e. Land Acquisition Collector v. Asaf Shah bearing No, 46/80 and Land Acquisition Collector v. Soba Khan and others bearing No, 77/80, arise out of the same award No, 12, dated 27th July, 1971 of village Kundriala and are, therefore, disposed of by this Single Judgment as common questions of fact and law are involved in both of them.
2. The relevant facts briefly state are that vide notification, dated 3rd May, 1967 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the entire estate of Village Kundriala, Tehsil Haripur, District Hazara was acquired at public expense for public purpose, namely Tarbela Dam Project.
3. After the completion of the legal formalities, issuance of the required notifications and hearing of the objection petitions of the persons interested, the Land Acquisition Collector vide the impugned award fixed the compensation for different types of land, built up property and fruit bearing trees mentioned therein.
4. Dissatisfied by the award Asif Shah son of Pir Sarwar Shah made an objection petition before the Land Acquisition Collector for making a reference of the same to the Acquisition Judge for its determination. In the objection petition re-classification of his acquired land, enhancement in compensation of the same and re-assessment of compensation for the fruit bearing trees was claimed.
5. On a reference made, the learned Acquisition Judge registered this objection petition as Reference Case No, 88/4 of 1977. Similarly the objection petition of Soba Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector, which was also forwarded to the Acquisition Judge was registered as Case No, 303/4 of 1977.
6. Both these objection petitions were resisted by the Land Acquisition Collector and WAPDA by filing written statement, which apart from others gave rise to the following issue for the determination of the Court.
"Whether the objector is entitled to the improvements in the suit land and it has wrongly been classified and undervalued, if so, what is the quantum of improvements, correct classification and fair compensation which the objector is entitled to ?
7. Rest of the issues, though framed, are not passed by the learned counsel for the parties in both these appeals. So there is no need to reproduce the same or to discuss them here. In short the grievance of the parties is confined to the valuation of the land, its classification and the valuation of the fruit bearing trees.
8. With regard to the valuation of different types of land, the Land Acquisition Judge relied on the averages, i. e; the average of sale transactions having taken place within a year next before the issuance of notification under section 4 and the average of sale transactions having taken place within a year after the said notification and thereafter worked out the compensation for different types of land as under :- Bash, Chahi,.................................... Rs, 3,225 P. K.
Bari Abi, Abadi,....,.... ....... ........... Rs, 2,419 P. K.
Bahir diabi, .......... Rs, 1,270.44 P. K.
Bari, ........................................ Rs, 907.20 P. K.
Kund,........................................ Rs, 604.80 P. K.
Maira, ..................................... Rs, 302.40 P. K.
Rakhat Kalsi, Banjar Qadeem and Ghair Mumkin...................... Rs, 100.80 P. K.
Daka Charagah,... .................... ...Rs, 50.40 P. K.
Ghair Mumkin Digar, .................. Rs, 25.20 P. K.
9. On the plain reading of the evidence produced on the issue we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there had been manipulated entries in the relevant mutations, the foundation for the averages referred to above, especially with respect to the sale considerations entered therein. However, no effort appears to have been made by the Land Acquisition Collector to bring out the true picture before the Court at the time of A recording of the evidence. We would have summoned the original mutations by way of additional evidence, as permissible under Order XLI, rule 27, for arriving at a just decision but we have been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the learned Acquisition Judge has fixed the compensation of various types of the land of the same village in numerous decisions given by him on the objection petitions against the same award. The appeals filed against those decisions before the year 1976, were withdrawn under the direction of Government and the valuation so fixed has attained finality and the affectees have been made payment at the rates referred to above. In support of this assertion statement of Muhammad Iqbal Naib-Tehsildar was recorded in Court. In these circumstances we would not like to come to a different conclusion by summoning the original mutations as stated above. In this view of the matter no exception could be taken to the valuation fixed for different types of land by the learned Acquisition Judge and as such we maintain the same.
10. The valuation for fruit bearing trees based on the goshwara prepared by E. A. D. A having been accepted by this Court in several cases is not to be reagitated.
11. The learned counsel for the objectors did not controvert the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of the built up property and conceded that the report of the private overseer be discarded and the finding of the learned Acquisition Collector be restored.
12. Lastly the controversy between the parties, to be resolved, is with regard to the classification of the acquired land. The only evidence which was made the basis 'of reclassification by the Acquisition Judge is the copy of khasra girdawari Exh.
0. W. 4/1. The learned. Acquisition Judge did not accept this document in respect of some of the khasra numbers in question for the reasons given in his judgment in detail. However, the same was relied upon. The reclassifying the rest of the disputed khasra numbers.
13.
13. We persued these entries with the help of the learned counsel for the parties and have, found that change in the classification of land has occurred for the first time in Rabi and Kharif 1966 and thereafter. As has been stated earlier that notification under section 4 of the Act was published in this case on 3rd May, 1967. The disputed Khasra numbers and its classification has been given in column No, 4 of the copies of khasra girdawari Exh. O. W. 4/1 for the period Kharif 1965 while the change has been brought for the subsequent period in Rabi 1966 and Kharif 1966 as is evident from the said document. Reference can be made for the sake of classification to only some of the Khasra numbers as under :- "Khasra No, 106 is shown in the relevant copy in Kharif 1965 as Dakka Rakh but in the subsequent crop i. e. Rabi 1966 the classification is shown to be Maira to the extent of 30 kanals out of total land measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas and it is shown under wheat crop. Similarly Khasra No, 122 shown as Dka Rakh in Kharif 1965 has been shown as Maira in Rabi 1966 and in possession of different persons than the one shown in the earlier period. In fact in all the Khasra numbers this change in classification has been invariably shown, inferior types of land is shown to have been converted to superior types of land all of a sudden."
14. Needless to say that no presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the Khasra Girdawari though the same is prepared in performanc of official duty. However, there being other internal defects in the document itself which are sufficient for discarding the same. In Chapter 9.3(XI) of the Land Record Manual it is provided : "Colum (7) when no change in the cultivation Occupancy has occurred in the Kharif, the patwari should make a stroke of the pen across the ablong space provided for change in the Khasra from the right hand top corner to the left hand bottom corner and another diagonal from the left hand to the right hand bottom corner, if no change has occurred in Rabi."
15. On perusal of the Khasra Girdawari it is evident that no change in cultivation had taken place in the harvest Kharif 1965 and Rabi 1966. It was, therefore, that the two lines as required to be drawn under the instructions referred to above were drawn in the relevant column No, 7 of Khasra Girdawari. However, it appears that subsequently over those crosses there has been made an entry showing the change in the occupancy and cultivation of some of these Khasra numbers. On the perusal of the same we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that these entries were subsequently made after the relevant period by the patwari at the instance of interested persons.
For the subsequent period to the disputed one no new entry or change or occupancy has been shown. We are, therefore, to hold that the change shown in the Khasra Girdawari in the occupany as well as in the classification of land in the Khasra Girdawari D copy Exh.
0. W. 4/1 was not genuine and was illegal and unwarranted to the extent where the change is shown over the two crosses drawn in the relevant column. These Khasra numbers are enumerated as under :- "106, 207, 208, 278, 393, 395. 403, 404, 415, 436, 440, 452, 456, 460, 461, 481, 485, 53.7, 591, 1236, 1237 and 1238."
16. The change in classification ordered by the learned Acquisition Judge with respect to the above-mentioned Khasra numbers is, therefore, set aside and that of the learned Acquisition Collector is restored. However, the classification with regard to the rest of Khasra numbers ordered by the learned Acquisition Judge is maintained for the reasons that change in those Khasra numbers have been shown in Rabi 1966 where the second cross has not been drawn in the relevant column.
17. In this view of the matter Appeal No, 77/80 Lana Acquisition Collector v. Soba Khan and others which is only with respect to the 7,nhancement in compensation of land and fruit bearing trees is dismissed. However Appeal No, 46/80 Land Acquisition Collector v. Asti Shah is partially accepted to the extent indicated above. Further action shall be taken in the light of this judgment, The parties are however, left to bear their own costs.