MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos.113/1992, 114/1992, 115/1992, 116/1992, 121/1992 and 122/1992 which are directed against the same judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore dated 19-2-1992.
2. By' a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 30-4-1980, the Collector, Lahore expressed his intention to acquire land measuring 18 Kanals and 13 Marlas described in the said notification for the public purpose, namely for the construction of 132-KV Fateh Garh Grid Station, Tehsil and District, Lahore. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 14-7-1982 whereby he determined the market value of the land as Rs.5,000 per Marla.
Aggrieved, the respondents in all these appeals applied under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Collector for referring the matter to the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore which was accordingly done.
3. The claim of the respondents before the Trial Court was that the market value of the land at the time of its acquisition was not less than Rs.15,000. Per Marla. In order to prove this fact, they produced oral as well as documentary evidence which comprised of the statements of A.W.1, Abdul Hafiz, A.W.2, Zafar Iqbal, A.W.3, Abdul Ghani and the documents Exhs. A-1 to A-5. In rebuttal, the appellants examined only one witness namely, Abdul Rahim, Assistant Land Acquisition Officer, WAPDA R.W.1Their remaining evidence was closed under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. On account of their failure to complete evidence despite various opportunities. In the impugned judgment, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore came to the conclusion that the market value of the land was Rs.15,000 per Marla and as such the compensation awarded by the Collector was enhanced from Rs.5,000 per Marla to Rs.15,000 per Marla.
4. In support of these appeals, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Senior Civil Judge was not justified in enhancing the compensation and that there was no evidence to support the finding that the market value of the land at the time of its acquisition was Rs.15,000 per Marla.
5. We do not see any substance in this contention. The evidence produced by the respondents sufficiently proves that the price fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was wholly deficient. From a perusal of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, it will be seen that the value was determined by him entirely on the basis of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, Lahore without holding any independent inquiry and without applying his own mind to the facts of these cases. This approach on the part of the Collector can hardly be appreciated.
Under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Collector is required to hold an inquiry and then determine the compensation payable which in the present cases he has unfortunately failed to do.
6. The important evidence which has been relied upon by the learned Senior Civil Judge in this respect is the statement of A. W.1, Abdul Hafiz which is supported by Award (Exh.A-1) to the effect that his adjacent land was acquired for the same purpose by the WAPDA and that compensation payable in respect of his land was determined at Rs.8,000 per Marla.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out from the record and indeed this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants and is also borne out by the Aks Shajra (Exh.A-4) that the land to which Exh.A-1 pertains is on the back of the land in dispute which is located on the main road and, therefore, definitely more valuable. The other evidence produced by the respondents namely sale-deeds, Exh.A-2, and Exh.A-3 ,and mutation Exh.A-4 also show that the learned Senior Civil Judge was correct in determining the value of the land at Rs.15,000 per Marla.
As already observed, the land is situate on the Canal Bank in the city of Lahore and abuts on the main road. Keeping in view the potential value of the land, the price fixed by the Senior Civil Judge cannot be said to be excessive.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the absence of any documents that the price of the land was Rs.15,000 per Marla, the Trial Court could not have fixed that price. We regret our inability to agree with the learned counsel. No law has been cited before us requiring that the market value can only be determined on the basis of documentary and not oral evidence.
In this respect we may refer to the judgment of the. Supreme Court of Pakistan in Fazal-ur-Rehrnan and others v. General Manager, S.I.D.B. And another (PLD 1986 SC 158) in which it was observed that oral testimony with respect to the market value of the land provided the credibility of the witness is not shaken. In the present case, nothing has been brought on the record to detract from the veracity of the witnesses produced by the respondents who have stated that the value of the land at the time of its execution was Rs.15,000 per Marla. The other important factor to be noticed in this behalf is that the appellants have failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal on this question and as such, there was no occasion for the learned Senior Civil Judge to have refused to rely upon the witnesses of the respondents. The only witness examined by the appellants was Abdul Rahim, R.W.1, who did not depose anything about the market value of the land while their remaining evidence was closed.