' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 8-12-1999, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants, herein, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts, giving, rise to the present appeal, are that land measuring 51 Kanals, 14 Marlas, situate in village Qasimabad, Tehsil Bhimber, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the award was announced vide No,EAC/MDA/93 on 15-2.1993. The compensation amount was awarded in the sum of Rs,1,17,000 per Kanal, in addition to 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The appellants filed a reference with the Collector Land Acquisition which after due process was sent to the District Judge, Mirpur for his decision. The same ultimately transferred to District Judge, Bhimber as the subject-matter in dispute fell within his territorial jurisdiction. The District Judge, Bhimber after necessary proceedings accepted the reference filed by the appellants and enhanced the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs,1,20,340 per Kanal plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges on 1-12-1996. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the District Judge the appellants, herein, preferred an appeal before the High Court as according to them the amount of compensation enhanced by the District Judge was quite meagre as against the prevalent market value of the land. The High Court vide the impugned judgment and decree, dated 8-12-1999, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Bhimber. Hence this appeal as of right.
3. Raja Hassan Akhter, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants, submitted with vehemence that the District Judge failed to decide the reference keeping in view the evidence brought on record by the appellants. It was contended that according to the evidence produced by the appellants, i,e,, the sale-deeds, the compensation amount was not determined in accordance with the market value of the land. In support of his assertion the learned counsel relied on sale-deeds Exhs.PE, PE/1 PE/2, PE/3, PE/4 and PE/7 and contended that if the average amount entered in the aforesaid sale-deeds is calculated then the compensation amount is enhanced to a considerable extent but this aspect of the case was not gone into by the District Judge as well as the High Court. The learned counsel also contended that the respondents did not produce the evidence in rebuttal of the evidence led by the appellants. The learned counsel for appellants in support of his contentions relied on reported cases titled C.R.M.A. Firm v. Special Collector of Pegu (AIR 1930 Rangoon 346), Chamanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another (AIR 1988 SC 1652), Government of Pakistan v. Hamid Akhtar (PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 6) and Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shan and 4 others (1999 SCR 291).
4. Controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. M. Riaz Tabassum and Ch Muhammad Mushtaq, the learned Additional Advocate-General, argued that the collector, Land Acquisition determined the compensation amount after considering the average price of three years on the basis of various sale-deeds including the sale-deeds produced by the appellants in the evidence which was in accordance with the market value of the land acquired. It was also contended by the learned counsel for respondents that the sale-deeds of small tracts of land cannot from the basis for determining the market value of the land acquired.
The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously argued that the compensation amount was received by the appellants without any protest, as such they were not entitled to file any reference or appeal.
5. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and perusing the record, it may be stated that the compensation amount was fixed by the Collector, Land Acquisition as Rs,1,17,000 per Kanal. The average price was; however, assessed as Rs,120,340 per Kanal. The District Judge accepted the reference filed by the appellants and fixed the price of the land as Rs,1,20,340 per Kanal. It was claimed by the learned counsel for the appellants that according to the sale-deeds Exhs.PE, PE/1, PE/2, PE/3, PE/4 and PE/7 brought on record by the appellants, they were entitled to the compensation of Rs,3,00,000 per Kanal. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, on careful consideration, is devoid of any force as the Collector, Land Acquisition on the basis of sale-deeds produced by the appellants and some other sale-deeds reached the conclusion that on the basis of average price of the sale- deeds for three years the compensation amount is determined Rs,1,17,000 per Kanal. In all about 14 sale-deeds were taken into consideration by the Collector, Land Acquisition on the basis of which he reached the conclusion that the average price of the land acquired would be Rs,1,17,000. It may also be stated that the sale-deeds produced by the appellants pertained to small tracts of land which cannot be made basis for market value of the land acquired.
6. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned that since the appellants have received the compensation amount without _ any protest, therefore, they were not entitled to file the reference or the appeal, has no substance because the objection to this regard was not raised by the respondents in their written statement.
7. In a case reported as C.R.M.A. Firm v. Special Collector of Pegu (AIR 1930 Rangoon 346), it was held as under:- "The Court should hold a separate inquiry and its proceedings are not a mere continuation of that of the Collector's. They are judicial proceedings and the decision must be based on evidence before the Court or on admission made by the opposite-party. Evidence before the Collector cannot be considered as evidence before the Court except with the consent of the parties."
' In a case reported as Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another (AIR 1988 SC 1652), it was observed that material relied on by Acquisition Officer in his award cannot be relied upon unless the same is produced and proved. Thus somewhat similar view was expressed in this ruling as is the case in C.R.M.A. Firm v. Special Collector of Pegu (AIR 1930 Rangoon 346).
8. In a case reported as Government of Pakistan v. Hamid Akhtar (PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 6), it was held as under:- "The amount of compensation of land is determined on the basis of principle postulated in sections 23 and 24 of the Act. It is enjoined upon the Collector and the Court to award compensation of land by keeping in view the factors, six in number, listed in section 23 and by excluding the factors described in section 24. It is obligatory to adhere to the statutory conditions. Among these conditions, the primary factor is the market value."
' In a case reported as Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shafi and 4 others (1999 SCR 291), it was held as under:--- "A small portion of land cannot be made basis for determining the market value of land. If geographical position of land acquired is such that it has the potential for being put to the use for business or the same can be used for construction of residential accommodation, the market value of land can be based even on sale-deeds which pertain to smaller portion of the land."
9. It may usefully be stated that on the basis of evidence brought on record, the District Judge reached the conclusion that the average price of the sale-deeds of three years is determined as Rs,1,20,340 per Kanal. The appellants failed to bring on record any evidence as to how much of land acquired forms part of the road as claimed by them. The oral evidence produced by the appellants being of no help to them cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, we do not find any fault in the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge and upheld by the High Court. The learned counsel for respondents relied on a case titled Muhammad Shafi and 7 others v. Azad Government and another (1998 CLC 2052), wherein it was held that the price of small pieces of land cannot from the market value of big tacks of land.
10. Nothing has been brought on record by appellants that the geographical position of land acquired is such that it has the potential for being put to the use for business or the same can be used for construction of residential accommodation, therefore, the market value of land having been rightly assessed by the Collector and the District Judge needs no interference by this Court.
11. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, the same stands dismissed.