1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These three direct appeals have arisen out of land compensation cases regarding acquisition made for Tarbela Dam in the revenue estate known as 'Thapla'
2. ' The 1st and 3rd appeals have been withdrawn and the separate orders have also been passed about their disposal.
3. ' In the C.A.No,237/83, the learned counsel has stated that the dispute relates only to 18 kanals 10 marlas in Khasra No,311. According to him, the, major part of the land in question was recorded in the revenue papers-- classification-wise as if, it was subject to and affected by river action known as Saren. He further explained that this meant that some time the land would be benefited by river action and at others it would be damaged by the same. Be that as it may, on appellants' grievance, the learned Referee District Court re-classified the entire area of 18 Kanals 10 Marlas as Bahir Di Abi a higher class of land, accordingly double the compensation, amounting to about Rs,2,858 per Kanal, was awarded for this entire area. On Government appeal the decision of the Referee Court was upheld only regarding 4 Kanals of land on the ground that only that much area was proved by documentary evidence as failing within classification of Bahir Di Abi. The remaining land being of inferior class, it was further held, could not be compensated at par with said 4 kanals.
4. The learned counsel further stated that although it was correct that only 4 Kanals was entered in the relevant papers as Bahir Di Abi, the remaining land being subject to the river action for irrigation purposes was of no less value. On these facts and circumstances, the learned counsel raised the following two contentions:-
(i) That the types of land namely the one which is Bahir Di Abi and the other which is not so both being subject to river action, should have been classified for compensation on the same basis on account of potentiality.
(ii) That for the same estate (Thapla) Bahir Di Abi land has been valued at Rs,10,627 per Kanal about 4 times awarded to the appellants.
5. ' The first contention is without force as after some hearing it was found that even if the source of irrigation for Bahir Di Abi is a river, there is some regularity of irrigation benefit for 4 Kanals of land which is clearly entered as Bahir Di Abi. Regarding the remaining land, even if it is subject to the action by the same river, there is no regularity of it benefiting the land. It could on the contrary also be injurious to it. Therefore, obviously there would be considerable difference between the two. In this context, the question of potentiality loses significance in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
6. ' Regarding the second argument, which prima facie appeared to be of considerable force at the first instance, on proper scrutiny, was found to be of absolutely no force. Learned Advocate- General explained that Government had filed' an appeal against the award for compensation relied upon by the learned appellants' counsel. It as asserted from the respondents' side, was most extraordinary and unexplainable on any touchstone except the tampering with the relevant records. However, it was further stated by the representative (Parokar) of the WAPbA, who seems to be well versed with the facts of cases which we have heard for some days, that the said appeal/s was withdrawn in 1976 under direct orders of the Prime Minister. Hence, it was argued from the respondent side that the said case or the orders therein could not at all be treated as a precedent to be followed in any her case, whether of village 'Thapla' or any other estate. Learned counsel for the appellants could not adequately meet the situation so created for him by the stand taken from the respondent side and the said argument could not be pressed by him any further.
7. ' We, accordingly, dismiss C.A .No,237 of 1983.
8. ' Next we took up the Civil Appeal No,88-P of 1987. The learned counsel started arguing it for some time seeking the enhancement of the award of Rs,10,627 per kanal to Rs,16,531 per Kanal, when the question arose, whether it would not be proper in this case to examine the correctness of the former award of Rs,10,627. It may be mentioned here, that the High Court had in the judgment impugned in Civil Appeal No,237 of 1983 adversely commented upon the documentary evidence, which supported the respondent's version of tampering with the records with a view to increase the compensation. It was in this context that the Court posed the question; whether, the very award at Rs,10,627 per Kanal could be set aside under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. The question was still being discussed as a preliminary issue when the learned counsel for the appellant was advised, it seems by his clients, to withdraw the appeal (Civil Appeal No,88-P/87). It is in this background that he withdrew the appeal.
9. ' When both the appeals Civil Appeal No,237 of 1983 and Civil Appeal No,88-P of 1987 thus stood dismissed, one on merits and the other as withdrawn, the learned Advocate-General took time for consultation, (on the asking of the WAPDA representative/Parokar) whether he would pursue the next appeal filed by WAPDA and Government, relating to village 'Thapla' namely Civil Appeal No,59- P of 1983 in which the learned counsel for respondents (for appellants in Civil Appeal No,88-P of 1987) ,and his clients for obvious reasons also felt interested. Accordingly, all went out of the courtroom and on return the learned Advocate-General withdrew the Civil Appeal No,59-P of 1983, which was dismissed with the following order:- "States that in view of withdrawal of C.A. No,88-P of 1987 and dismissal of C.A. No,237 of 1983, he withdraws this appeal. Dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. This withdrawal shall not be treated as a precedent in any manner whatsoever."
10. ' While hearing another set of appeals regarding compensation under the Land Acquisition Act an important question had arisen; whether, different awards of compensation for the same village or for similar land in contiguous and adjoining villages could not be made basis for determining the otherwise difficult appeal cases of compensation. In one case for example on account of established vast scale tampering with the records, no alternative was left at all with the High Court except, to rely upon the final awards regarding adjoining villages.
11. ' We have given in some detail the background and the proceedings ,held in 'the lower Courts as well as in this Court with the purpose of highlighting the dangers of relying on the so-called final awards regarding similar land in the same village or in adjoining villages, except of course in very rare cases like the one where the record was tampered with on a large scale. The question of finality of award in this context would depend upon the circumstances of each case for example in the case of village 'Thapla', as, is obvious from the foregoing narrative, the compensation at the rate of more than Rs,10,000 per Kanal could not at all be treated as basis and precedent for enhancement of other awards.
12. ' With these observations, these three appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs, PLD 1989 Supreme Court 593 [Shariat Appellate Bench) {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}} "15. Definition of haraabah.-When any one or more persons whether equipped with arms or not, make show of force for the purpose of taking away the property of another and, attack him or cause wrongful restraint or put him in fear of death or hurt, such person or persons are said to commit haraabah." {{URDU TEXT}}