MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J. The instant as well as connected Regular First Appeal bearing No.761 of 2013 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the "Act") are directed against the same judgment and decree dated 16.03.2013 passed by Ch. Farrukh Hussain, learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, being a referee Court under section 18 of the Act. Since both the parties through respective appeals quest for their respective success question the validity, propriety and legality of the impugned judgment and decree, therefore, the rights and interests of respective parties are determined through this single judgment.
2. The appellants National Highway Authority ("NHA") have questioned the impugned judgment and decree in order to nullify the impact of determination by the Court of first instance, pursuant whereto while partially allowing the Reference Application filed by the respondents, the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per marla along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 8% compound interest upon enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till its realization. Conversely, the respondents herein through their connected appeal seek further enhancement of compensation by modification of impugned judgment and decree.
3. The stances, grounds and justifications for laying a challenge to the impugned judgment and decree are duly canvassed in their respective appeals and both the learned counsel for the parties have argued at length to substantiate that the impugned judgment and decree misread the evidence on record. The NHA claims that on account of misreading of evidence the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be upended as despite weaknesses contained in the claim of respondents and shaky and inadmissible evidence presented by them, the learned referee Court illegally and unlawfully enhanced the quantum of compensation than the one determined by the subject matter Award. The respondents have targeted an effort to dislodge the determination through impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the learned Court below had illegally appreciated the evidence and, therefore, the amount of compensation is liable to be further enhanced.
4. The fate of both the connected appeals will obviously be dependent on analysis of material available on record and scrutiny of quantitative and qualitative impact of depositions as well as documentary evidence would lead to evaluate the findings contained in the impugned judgment and decree in contrast to the respective claims of the parties. The merits culminating into impugned judgment and decree emanate from proceedings of acquisition of land admeasuring 247-Kanals 6.5 Marlas from different Khasra numbers falling in revenue estate of Mauza Babu Sabu, Tehsil and District Lahore initiated by NHA for completion of project, namely, Construction of Lahore Bypass. Out of the total acquired land, the quantum of respondents' land was 08-Kanals 07-Marlas falling in Khasra Nos.3112/2496/1, 3123/261/2, 2502/1, 3134/2512/2, 2513/1 and 2137/2523/02.
The Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.09.1993. The Award was announced on 26.02.1996 pursuant whereto the compensation of total land admeasuring 08- Kanals 07-Marlas owned by the respondents was declared in a manner that the compensation of 06-Kanals 12- Marlas land was evaluated to a sum of Rs.5,000/- per Marla as the land was falling in category 'C', whereas the Compensation for 01-Kanal 15-Marlas land falling in category 'B' was assessed in the sum of Rs.10,000/- per Marla.
5. The respondents filed their Reference Application under section 18 of the Act and claimed enhancement of awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.55,000/- per Marla along with compulsory acquisition charges and compound interest. The learned court of first instance framed as many as eight issues, out of which issues No.1 to 5 were decided against the NHA, whereas issues Nos.6 and 7 i.e. whether the land acquired is correctly valued for determination of compensation? and if issue No.6 is not proved, what was the market value of the land at the time of acquisition, were partially decided in favour of the respondents whereby without giving findings based on categories of the land in which subject matter property of the respondents fell passed the impugned judgment and decree by awarding enhanced compensation to the respondents.
6. Before we enter into evaluation of evidence led by the respective parties, two facts are admitted.
Firstly, the nature of land of the respondents acquired by NHA was nul chahi selab' and secondly, compensation in subject matter Award was received under protest in the sum of Rs.573,158.60. It was imperative to discuss the nature of land as it has keen argued before us that market value of land in question shall be akin to the commercial land.
7. The question of determination of compensation in lines with market as well as potential value is fully elaborated in a recent commemorated judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No.914-L of 2013 titled Malik Tariq Mahmood and others v. Province of Punjab and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the light of judgments declared that the compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act is to be determined on the basis of market value of the land at the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Court assessing compensation is required to take into consideration not only the present purpose or the present use to which the land is applied but also any other more beneficial purpose to which it might reasonably be put by the owner. Indubitably, it is true that regard can be had only to the existing conditions and what is likely to happen in reasonably near future and compensation cannot be fixed on the basis of what might happen in the dim and distant future. Whereas on the point of potentiality in the said report the Supreme Court held that an entry in the reveiue record as to the nature of the land may not be conclusive and if the land acquired is found to be useful for both agricultural and non-agricultural purposes, merely on the ground that it was used as agricultural laid by the owner till time of its acquisition, its potentiality as non-agricultural land cannot be ignored.
8. Therefore, it is equally imperative that the assessment of marketable potentiality of the price of acquired land is primarily dependent on the qualitative and quantitative evidentiary material produced by a person seeking enhancement of the compensation. It is the creditworthiness of the quantum and quality of oral as well as documentary evidence, which may assist the Court to impeach the judgments and decrees passed by the lower fora while recommending enhancement of compensation. In order to evaluate the findings contained in the impugned judgments and decrees and to identify whether the Court lawfully determined the market value as well as potential increase in the compensation, we have carefully examined the lower Court's record which reflects that in support of reference applications the sole witness appeared on behalf of the respondents was Syed Ali Hamza AW-1 who in his examination-in-chief deposed/that at the time of acquisition, the land in the vicinity was worth Rs.55,000/- per Marla. The applicable rate according to Deputy Commissioner's Valuation Table was Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per Marla. The witness presented in evidence copy of sale deeds as Exh.AW1/1 to Exh.AW1/6. The application raising objection was presented as Exh.AW1/7, whereas Valuation Table according to D.C. rate was adduced as Exh-AW1/8 and Aks Shajra was presented as Exh-AW1/9. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that the acquired property was ancestral land and all documents presented were never produced at the time of objections against the Award. The witness also deposed that the sale deeds as well as Valuation Table are prior to year 1995 and the acquired land of the respondents was commercial. However, it is noted from the cross-examination that witness admitted that no commercialization notification was adduced in evidence. In cross-examination, the witness also conceded that in past the land was used for agricultural purposes and he did not remember whether the land was water-logged or not? On behalf of respondents, Muhammad Azhar Tariq the Land Acquisition Collector appeared as DW1 and adduced documentary evidence as Exh-DI to Exh.D-6.
9. The examination of deposition as well as documentary evidence demonstrates that the respondents in the instant appeal and NHA in connected appeal neither produced evidence of such a quality expected by law to be cogent and creditworthy nor quantity of witnesses or documentary evidence proving their claim produced before the court of first instance. For example, claim of commercialization of property before us as well as before the learned lower Court throughout remained dented as the witness AW-1 himself conceded that he did not produce in evidence any notification or documentary proof with respect to commercialized nature of the property. The Valuation Table dated 02.07.1995 (Exh-AW1/8) simply refers to the rates of commercial and residential properties in Mauza Babu Sabu. Admittedly, the subject matter property was neither residential nor commercial, therefore, it could have never been claimed that the D.C. rate of acquired property was at much higher in quantum than the one proposed by the Award. Admittedly, the Revenue record reflecting the status of land as agricultural and 'nul chahi selab' was never challenged or questioned by the respondents and witness appearing on their behalf conceded that ancestral land was used for agricultural purposes, therefore, the Valuation Table cannot come to the rescue of the respondents.
10. So far as the sale deeds adduced in evidence are concerned, all those sale deeds clearly reflect that they pertain to residential or commercial properties. They even otherwise cannot come to rescue the respondents as merely by exhibiting these documents, though the existence stands established but contents are to be proved through independent cogent evidence which is absent in the instant case.
11. The examination of evidence demonstrates that the respondents neither produced evidence of such a quality expected by law nor quantity that might have justified their claim for enhancement of compensation. They were bound to produce tangible, trustworthy and credible evidence in support of their claim. Their failure to place on record material evidence directly linked with the nature of claim and an expected mode to discharge the onus was deficient and in such a case the Court below could not have enhanced the amount of compensation to satisfy a wishful thinking of a claimant. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgments reported as Jind Wadda and others v. General Manager NHA (LM and IS), Islamabad and others (2023 SCMR 1005) and Land Acquisition Collector Sargodha and another v. Muhammad Sultan and another (PLC 2014 SC 696).
12. It is also pivotal to express our opinion that merely by presenting the documents in evidence is inconsequential and is of no evidentiary value unless these documents are produced and proved in accordance with law. Therefore, these documents only have seeming value in law. Reliance in this respect is placed upon judgment reported as Hyderabad Development Authority through MD. Civic Centre, Hyderabad v. Abdul Majeed and others (PLD 2002 SC 84). In disputes relating to enhancement of quantum of compensation the landowners have to produce independent trustworthy and credible evidence to substantiate their claim and burden of proof in such cases is incumbent upon the landowners. Reliance in this respect is placed upon the judgment reported as Jind Wadda and others v. General Manager NHA (LM and IS), Islamabad and others (2023 SCMR 1005).
13. The transactions though were adduced in evidence but the respondents/landowners were duty bound to produce witnesses to prove those sale deeds substantiating and proving the transactions either by presenting vendor or vendee or witnesses passing consideration to prove that sale transactions presented before the Court were genuine and duly executed inter se willing vendor and vendee. The mere presentation of documentary evidence and getting them exhibited cannot substantiate that the landowners had discharged the burden of proving the market as well as potential value of the land. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment reported as Muhammad Yaqoob through Legal Heirs v. Land Acquisition Collector (Muhammad-4) National Highway Authority and 4 others (PLD 2021 Lahore 364).
14. In the instant case, admittedly the subject matter Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.09.1993. It is established principle of law that in cases of land acquisition it is the landowner who has to disprove the determination by the Land Acquisition Collector by producing convincing and legally admissible evidence. As per Rule 10(1)(iii)(c) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, (the "Rules") the relevant period for determination of market value would be the one prevalent during one year preceding to the Notification under section 4 of the Act. Reliance in this respect is placed upon the judgment reported is Lahore Ring Road Authority and others v. Mian Mumtaz and others (2021 CLC 178). In the instant case adducing Valuation Table to demonstrate that D.C. rate of the property was much higher is otherwise inconsequential as the said Valuation Table is of year 1995 i.e. one year prior to announcement of Award, which is irrelevant under the provisions of Act as well as Rules to evaluate or assess the amount of compensation.
15. With this quality and quantity of evidence, we are afraid that the learned Court below had no sufficient evidentiary material on record to enhance the amount of compensation assessed by the Award as the respondents being landowners failed to prove their wishful claim through creditworthy, concrete and unimpeachable oral as well as documentary evidence: Consequently, we hold that findings of learned referee Court on issues Nos.6 and 7 are against the law as well as record and we, therefore, reverse the same and issues are decided against the respondents and in favour of the NHA.
16. In the light of above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 16.03.2013 passed by the learned referee Court are set aside. Simultaneously, we declare that the connected appeal filed by the respondents for enhancement of compensation is meritless and bereft of sufficient documentary proof and as a consequence thereof, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.