1. BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- The facts giving rise to this appeal by leave of the Court, are that land under Survey No.20 in Village Gojra, Muzaffarabad measuring 1 Kanal and 14 Marlas was acquired for Army purposes and the award was made on 17th December, 1981. The appellants, Government of Pakistan and Military Estate Officer, filed reference against the said award before Collector Land Acquisition, Muzaffarabad who, held that the reference was time-barred and refused to forward it to the Court. The appellants then filed a civil suit. -The civil suit filed by the appellants and the reference filed by the respondent were consolidated and were disposed of by the learned District Judge, Muzaffarabad on 16th February, 1994. The reference filed by the respondent was accepted and the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs.20,000 per Kanal to Rs.1,50,000 per Kanal while the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed. An appeal taken by the appellants to the High Court failed. However, an appeal before this Court was accepted and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh decision on the technical ground that the appeal before the High Court was disposed of by a Single Judge while it. Was legally to be heard by a Division Bench. After rehearing, the Division Bench of the High Court also reached the same conclusions and the appeal was dismissed. Leave ' was granted to the appellants when it was contended on behalf of the present appellants that the land in the present case was acquired in the year 1981 but compensation was awarded in light of an award which was made in 1987 which was not relevant for the present case.
2. On behalf of the appellants, Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, vehemently contended that the respondent Ch. Muhammad Sadiq did not claim that he should be paid compensation at the rate of R~.1,50,000 per Kanal and only demanded that he was entitled to an amount of "morc than one lac" per Kanal. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that a plaintiff can only be given a relief which is demanded by him and the Court cannot travel beyond pleadings of the parties. No other point was nrged on behalf of the appellants.
3. It was submitted by Syed Azad Hussain Shah. The learned counsel for the respondents, that one Nasir Abbas Kazmi was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000 by the Court for land situated in the same survey number, namely, Survey No.20 in Gojra, Muzaffarabad. He stated that Nasir Abba," Kazmi was also given interest. The rate of compensation to be payable to respondent Ch. Muhammad Sadiq was also determined to be the same because both the lands were situated in the same survey number. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was not included in the petition for leave to appeal nor in the concise statement. He, therefore, submitted that the new point could not be raised by the learned counsel during arguments. He relied on the following case --law.
4. 1998 MLD 2038 a point not raised in the High Court nor included in the concise statement was not considered when raised before this Court for the first time.
5. To meet this argument the learned counsel for the appellants relied on Kh. Muhammad Ayub v.
6. Mirza Tazarrat Hussain and 5 others 1998 SCR 58 in which case it was held that a law point going to the root of the case can be raised in this Court for the first time. In that case a new point was raised in the petition for leave to appeal. However, in the present case the situation is totally different because the point under reference was not raised in the petition for leave to appeal nor was it included in the concise statement. He then relied on the case titled Berro v. Mst. Said Bi 1992 SCR 286 and Barkat Hussain v. Sardar Misri Khan PLD 1992 SC (AJ&K) 45 in which a point going to the root of the case was allowed to be raised for the first time but it had been duly raised in the petition for leave to appeal.
7. The appellant contended that market value of the land sought to be acquired was "more than one lac per Kanal". The market price after due investigation was found to be Rs.1,50,000 per Kanal. The same amount had been awarded in favour of another person who owned land in the same survey 8 number. Therefore, the point sought to be argued is not a point going to the root of the case.
8. The appeal, therefore, fails. However, we make no order as to costs in this Court.