The relevant facts for the decision of this appeal are that the respondent purchased a plot of land measuring 10 Marlas vide registered sale-deed, dated 17th March, 1980. He got the building plan sanctioned and secured a loan of Rs.20,000 from the National Bank of Pakistan. Then this land was acquired for Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur Extension Scheme. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation at Rs.9,568 as per award dated 19-4-1983. The respondent filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The same came up on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur. The claim of the respondent was contested by the appellants. The Court accordingly framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the petitioner is estopped by his conduct from filing the present petition? OPR
(2) Whether the Land Acquisition Collector had not properly assessed the compensation for the disputed land? OPA (3)If Issue No.2 is proved, what was the market value of the disputed land at the time of acquisition ?OPA
(4) Whether this petition is barred by limitation?
(5) Relief.
The respondent in proof of his claim produced certified copies of sale-deed Exh.A/1, mortgage deed Exh.A/2, copy of Mutation Exh.A/3 and sanctioned plan Exh.A/4 while the appellant produced copy of award as Exh.R/1 and closed his side. Thereafter, the Special Attorney of the respondent appeared as the only witness. The learned Senior Civil Judge after hearing the arguments accepted the application and fixed the compensation at Rs.20,000 vide judgment and decree dated 8-6-198 7 which has been assailed through this appeal. It was admitted to hearing on 21-I1- 1987 and notice was issued to the respondent, who has appeared through Mr. Muhammad Shamsher Iqbal, Advocatee and contested the appeal.
2. The learned A.A.-G. Argued that the respondent was allowed compensation of Rs.9,568 in accordance with the prevalent market value. It is added that the same was correctly fixed as is clear from the fact that none of the other owners have disputed or challenged the same. It is added that in any case the interest should not have been allowed. The arguments are summed up with the submission that reference was barred by limitation.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent had purchased the property through a registered sale-deed for Rs.20,000, which was the price bona fide fixed and paid as is clear from the fact that Rs.5,000 was paid as earnest money and a sum of Rs.15,000 was paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale-deed. It is added that thereafter, the respondent secured a loan of Rs.20,000 and also got the building plan sanctioned. It is added that no law permits acquisition of the property of a citizen at the lesser price than paid by the citizen. It is added that the judgment is based on documentary evidence. There is nothing wrong with the same. The learned counsel in this behalf referred to the case reported as Muhammad Rafique Khan v. The Province of the Punjab etc. (1992 CLC 1775).
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and precedent. Issues Nos.2 and 3 are inter-connected. The admitted position on the record is that the respondent purchased this property through registered sale- deed. The question arises whether the price was genuinely fixed and paid or it was the usual technique to claim compensation at a higher rate. It is clear from that sale-deed Exb.A/1 that Rs.15,000 of the consideration was paid before the Sub-Registrar. This coupled with the fact that the respondent immediately proceeded to secure loan from the National Bank of Pakistan for construction of house and got the building plan sanctioned from the Cantonment Board prove beyond any doubt that, in fact, the property was acquired genuinely by the respondent for construction of house. The Land Acquisition Collector did not fix the market price properly. In this case, original notification was issued on 25-11-1979 while the revised notification was issued on 29- 1-1981 whereafter acquisition proceedings of the said land were undertaken. The respondent has not been allowed the market value but the price when he had paid for the-plot, Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the judgment of the Trial Court. The learned A.A.-G. Also argued that the reference was barred by limitation. The Trial Court while deciding the reference cannot go behind it because this question was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Collector as held in the case of Muhammad Rafique (supra).
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed with costs.