MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--This is an appeal against judgment and decree dated 3-2-1985, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The facts in which this appeal has arisen in brief are that through Notification dated 14-5-1976 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, land measuring 117 kanals 11 marlas in Chak No.120/J.B., Faisalabad, was acquired for Sui Northern Gas Pipelines for construction of office building and allied installation. This land included the land measuring 9 kanals 2 marlas owned by the appellant and the dispute relates to only this land. The Acquisition Collector announced the award on 28-9-1978 by which he awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.64,339 per acre plus 15$ compulsory acquisition charges and 8$ compound interest for 344 days. The appellant received the compensation under protest. Feeling aggrieved regarding assessment of market value of the land by the Collector in his award the appellant filed reference asserting that the compensation was inadequate and that Land Acquisition Collector failed to apply his own independent mind and blindly followed the directive of Revenue Department in assessing the compensation. He also claimed compulsory acquisition charges at 25$ instead of 15$ allowed to him. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.3,60,000 per acre. The reference was sent to the Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad for his decision. The Collector filed written reply in which he justified the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellant. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited separately filed written reply and controverted the allegations made in the reference in which it was also stated that the Collector correctly assessed the compensation which is in accordance with the average price of land in the vicinity and according to the sale mutations of the other lands in the neighbourly area. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- (1)Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is not adequate, if so, what is the adequate compensation? O.P.A.
(2)Relief.
The appellant himself appeared as A.W.5 and also examined Muhammad Rafiq A.W.1, Ghulam Nabi A.W.2, Muhammad Yasin A.W.3 and Aziz Ahinad A.W.
4. On the other hand the respondent examined Abdul Majid Patwari R.W.1 and Muhammad Amin Lands Officer, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines R.W.2. The Patwari R.W. 1 proved five years sale average table placed on record as EXh.R.W.l/1 whereas Muhammad Amin R.W. 2 produced general power of attorney as R.W.2/1, Gazette Notification dated 12-4-1977 and Exh.R.W.2/5 which is copy of the judgment.
3. After considering the evidence of both the parties the learned trial Court answered issue No.l in the negative. He found that compensation already .Paid is in accordance with the future prospects and potentiality of the land. The land of the appellant, it was held, was situated at a distance of several acres from Sargodha Road and the transactions referred in the statements of A.W.1 to A.W.3 were held to be of no help as documentary evidence in respect thereof had been withheld. He also recorded finding that the appellant's land had no approach which had devalued its utility. The claim of the appellant for compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 25$ was also repelled.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued that the Land Acquisition Collector while deciding the question of quantum of compensation did not determine the market value of the land himself after holding inquiry with his own independent mind but instead blindly followed the directive of the Government which has prejudiced the case of the appellant.
5. We have examined the evidence both documentary and oral produced by the parties with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant stated that the land was situated within municipal limits which was surrounded by commercial concerns and residential colonies. He claimed market value of his land at Rs.10,000 per Marla. In his statement however, he did not depose that the Land Acquisition Collector did not hold any inquiry or that the evidence which the appellant wanted to produce was refused to be recorded. Muhammad Rafiq A.W. 1 deposed about the sale of land by him measuring 31 Marlas in Chak No.120/J.B. For a consideration of Rs.8,000 to Muhammad Shafi in the year 1975. It was admitted by him that the said land was adjacent to the road whereas the land of the appellant in dispute was situated at a distance of one acre from the road. No sale-deed was produced in evidence regarding this sale. Ghulam Nabi A.W.
2 also stated that he sold an area of 3j Marlas in Chak No.120/J.B. For an amount of Rs.9,000 in the year 1973-1974. He admitted that the land in dispute of the appellant was at a distance of two acres from the road and the land sold by him was adjacent to the road. Mohammad Yasin A.W.3 also stated that he sold an area of 2 Kanals 1 Marla and 3 sarsaies for a consideration of Rs.50,000 in the year 1975 and also admitted that the land in dispute was located at a distance farther than the land sold by him. A.W.4 Aziz Ahmad deposed that land of the appellant was adjacent to his land in Chak No. 120/J.B. And the market value of it was Rs.10,000 per Marla. This witness himself being aggrieved by the said award his land having been also acquired had himself filed objections. It is clear from this evidence that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence regarding the sale transaction about which oral evidence was produced as noted above.
It is apparent from the statements of A.W.1 to A.W. 3 that the land sold and purchased was better in situation on account of their location adjacent to the road than the land in dispute. After considering the evidence of the appellant we are of the firm view that he miserably failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim. On the other hand, Abdul Majid Patwari who appeared as R . W .1 produced sale average Exh.R.W.l/1 based on sales of lands from 29-4-1975 to 27-4-1976. Iti is in his evidence that the land in dispute was situated at a distance of four squares from residential area of Chak No.120/J.B. And that it had no access. All the sales mentioned in R.W.
1/1 except one sale made on 29-4-1975 of an area of 4 Kanals 7 Marlas 3-3/4 sarsaies for an amount of Rs.9,000 which was for agricultural purposes, were made for the residential purposes.
Though the authorities could justifiably assess the market value of the land on the basis of average rice of the sales made during the last five years, however the compensation already assessed by the Collector is in accordance with the average sale prices of lands sold from 29-4-1975 to 27-4- 1976 which as a matter of fact has benefited the appellant, because had it been on the basis of average sale prices of five years the compensation would have been even lesser than the assessed. Nor evidence has been led by the appellant about the future potentiality of land. No evidence has also been brought on the record regarding any sale of similarly situated land in the vicinity so as to establish that the market price of the land was higher than what was assessed. The assessm ent of the compensation having been found to be in accordance with the evidence produced on the record, therefore the argument that the Collector merely followed the directions of the Government in this context loses its force. The findings of the trial Court have not been shown to be in any manner not borne out from the record. After examining the evidence, we have also come to the same conclusion as recorded by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the land having been acquired for public purpose the appellant was not entitled to compulsory acquisition charges at 25$ and did not press the claim in this respect.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for no interference, therefore, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.