IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, J. - This Appeal against the order dated 30th September, 1997 under Section 54 of Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging order of District Judge (Ad hoc) whereby reference forwarded by the Collector under Section 18- of the Act dismissed and Award for compensation of the land owned by appellants maintained.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that, appellants were owners of following property situated in Chashma/Mauza Hudda, Tehsil and District Quetta:- Khasra No. Admeasuring rods/pols
(1) 1051/542/68 5-9
(ii) 1304/1/73 1-25
(iii) 1049/541/68 4-2 _________________________________ Total: 2-3-16 equal to 1,24,126, sq. ft.
The Assistant Commissioner/Collector vide Award dated 20th February, 1993 acquired the above property at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. Ft.
3. Appellants feeling dissatisfaction preferred petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before Collector who forwarded the same lo District Judge for disposal. Ultimately it came on the file of District Judge (Ad hoc) Quetta who disposed it of vide impugned order. As such, instant appeal has been filed.
4. Mr. M. Zafar learned Counsel appeared for appellants; whereas Mr. Muhammad Achakzai, Additional Advocate General represented to official respondents.
5. According to learned counsel for appellants, District Judge, had ignored material evidence available on record, namely; Reports (Ex.A/1 and A/2), produced by RW-Rafique Ahmad, wherein, it has been categorically Stated that prevailing value of the acquired land, at the relevant time was Rs. 160/- per square foot. Agreement dated 27th May, 1992, was executed between appellants through Syed Hashim Ali and Primary Education Development Programme, through its Additional Director, wherein former agreed to sell this property at the fate of Rs. 122/- p.s.f. Totalling to Rs.01,52,50,000/-. He also stressed that the plot of land acquired by Education Department js situated in posh area, in-between Jinnah Town and Sammungli Town, therefore, due to this reason, its potential value has also increased, but all these important facts were not taken into consideration by the District Judge, properly, thus the compensation awarded to appellant by the Collector, deserve to be increased from Rs. 75/- p.s.f. To at least Rs. 122/- p.s.f. Plus 15% compulsory charges.
6. Mr. Noor Muhammad Achakzai, learned Additional Advocate General, contended that appellants failed to produce admissible evidence before the District Judge in support of their claim, because the reports produced by them, were not based on any mutation entires. Comparing to these two reports RW-Rafique Ahmad, the same witness, who had also appeared on behalf of appellants, produced extract from mutation record attested in-between 1989 to 1991, of the same vacinity, according to which, the compensation of awarded by the Collector to appellants, alongwith 15% compulsory charges.
7. We have heard the parties' counsel and also perused the relevant documents, exhibited during trial before the District Judge, as well as the Award of Collector, dated 20th February, 1993.
8. It is to be observed that the Collector besides considering, location and potentional value of the land, has also calculated average price of the lands pertaining to previous three years, in the area, where the lands of appellants are situated, in terms of section 23(1)(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and then concluded that appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- p.s.f.
In addition to 15% compulsory charges, as admissible under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the learned District Judge PW- Khalid Javed Malik produced agreement dated 27.5.1990, executed between appellants and Additional Director, Primary Education Development Programme, in photostat, as Mark-'A'. In this-Agreement, the Additional Director had agreed - to purchase the land from appellants through negotiations at the rate of Rs.
122/- p.s.f. Secretary, Education, being the competency Authority, renounced this Agreement, because Additional Director, was not empowered in his official capacity, to enter into such type of Agreement. In this behalf on 20th December, 1992, Collector, wrote a letter (produced by PW- Hussain Ali, Junior Clerk of the office of Deputy Commissioner as (Ex.A/B) to the Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Education Department, wherein, by making reference to the letter dated 7th December, 1992, it was pointed out that the execution of an agreement between the owners of land situated in Jinnah Town and Additional Director, for purchase of land"at the rate of Rs. 122/- p.s.f. And insistence of Syed Hazrat Ali, General Attorney Of concerned owners for the payment on the rate agreed upon by parties, has created an embarrassing situation and the acquisition proceedings have Come to stand still, until and unless the said agreement is renounced by the Department, the acquisition proceedings are not likely to be finalized. The Department, in turn, accepted the request of Deputy Commissioner and renounced the said Agreement, as having been executed by the Additional Director, without lawful authority and to make this fact known to everybody/general public, a publication was also made in Daily 'JANG'.
This fact definitely was in the knowledge of appellants, but they did not file a suit for declaration, injunction and specific performance of agreement, against the Additional Director and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction, of Collector, who till then had taken in hand, the proceedings of land acquisition, Therefore, as for as this agreement is concerned, it being a document, which has no legal sanctity, cannot be utilized by them in their favour.
9. After having excluded the Agreement from consideration, now we are left with two reports (Exs.
A/1 and A/2), produced by RW-Rafique Ahmad, Patwari of Tehsil Quetta. As regard the former report, in its para-8, it has been mentioned that the average price of the land situated in Mouza, for the last three years, per acre is Rs. 11,83,272/50. However, it does not contain reference of any actual transaction if had taken place on this rate for the last three preceding years. Similarly in para-9, without mentioning or recording mutation numbers, if actual transaction had taken place, the highest and lowest rates, for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, have been mentioned and in the last column without making reference of any document, arbitrarily, It has been noted that the minimum price of the land is Rs. 130/- p.s.f. And maximum is Rs. 160/- p.s.f. Mere production of document, without supporting its contents, with reference to mutation entries or registered sale- deeds, it cannot be accepted to be true and in absence of such evidence, it would be deemed that the document/Report is based on guess work of Patwari, who prepared the same. So far Ex.A/2 is concerned, it is the ditto copy of Ex.A/1, therefore, it can also not be accepted, for the purpose of determining fair/adequate compensation of the land. Jt is most important to note that none o^the witness of appellants, deposed in respect of potential value of the land, with reference to its location and future prospects of the development in the area. Therefore, the learned District Judge had discarded both these documents, being not admissible under the law.
10. On the other hand, respondent/Collector, led solid evidence 1.e. Comparative statement of the prices of land with reference to actual transaction, took place by means of different mutation entries, during the period commencing from 1989 to 1991. This document was produced by RW- Rafique Ahmad, Patwari, as Ex.R/1 and on basis of mutation entries, the witness opined that market prevailing price of the land is in-between Rs. 60 and 70/- p.s.f. In cross- examination, the contents of the 'Goshwara' containing details of the mutation entries, was not challenged effectively, by the appellants. The last witness produced by respondent namely Abdul Majid had given the details of the proceedings drawn by Collector, before acquiring the land.
11. Learned .Counsel, Mr. M. Zafar, referred to Water and Sanitation Authority, Quetta through Managing Director and another v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others (PLD 1992 Quetta 75) and stated that the trial Court may have awarded enhancement in compensation of land, by taking into consideration, the principles, referred to therein. There is no cavil that in cited judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, high-lighted the plus and minus factors, which are required to be taken into consideration by the Collector and District Judge, while disposing of the Reference, for the purpose of determining the adequate compensation of the land being acquired, but these factors can be taken into consideration provided there is evidence, available on record.
Unfortunately in the case in hand, except producing two reports and one agreement 1.e. Exs. A/1, A/2 and Mark-'A', no other documentary or convincing oral evidence was produced by appellants, to make out a case for adequate increase in the compensation amount. Thus the authority relied upon by the learned counsel, has not rendered any help to him. On our independent appreciation, we are indeed inclined to subscribe to the findings, recorded by the District Judge, in impugned order, because we have not been persuaded by the learned counsel for appellants, to take exception, against these findings.
12. Accordingly the present appeal, for the foregoing discussion, is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their on costs.