' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Brief facts out of which this appeal arises are that the land in dispute had been acquired for the construction of Khairwala main Drain. The Collector Jhang issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 15-2-1981 which was published in the official Gazette on 3-6-1981. The Collector, vide his award, dated 2-6-1987, determined the market value of the land in question as follows:--
(i) Rs,10,000 per Acre for Nul Chahi.
(ii) Rs,75,000 per Acre for Banjar Kham.
(iii) Rs,5,000 per Acre for Banjar Qadeem.
2. Respondent No,9 and predecessors of the remaining respondents filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Senior Civil Judge, Jhang. The present appellants filed written reply controverting the allegations levelled in the reference. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether the market value of the land in dispute was inadequately fixed by the learned Acquisition Collector and if so, what was the, market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
(ii) Whether there were crops and standing fruit trees on the acquired land at the time of taking possession by the Collector and if so how much they were and what amount of compensation, the petitioners Muhammad Amin etc. Entitled to receive for them? OPP
(iii) Relief.
3. The learned trial Court enhanced the compensation vide judgment and decree dated 26-4-1989 in the following terms:--
(i) Market value of Nul Chahi land from Rs, 10,000 per Acre to Rs,17,000 per Acre.
(ii) Banjar Kham from Rs,75,000 pe Acre to 1250 for Banjar Qadee from Rs,500 to Rs,8,000 per Acre.
4. The appellants and respondents being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang filed two R.F.As. Nos.90 and 91 of 1989 before this Court which were accepted vide judgment dated 1-12-1990 and the case remanded to the learned trial Court to determine the market value of the land after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence with reference to the compensation awarded for the land in the . Adjoining villages @ Rs,46,000 per Acre. The learned Senior Civil Judge, after remand, and providing opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, enhanced the compensation vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 6-12- 1994 in the following terms:--
(i) Compensation for the land acquired by the appellants be calculated at the rate of Rs,46,000 per Acre.
(ii) Compound interest @ 8% from the date of dispossession from the land to the date of payment.
(iii) 15% compulsory charges under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
' Appellants being aggrieved filed this R.F.A.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court erred in law to enhance the compensation by disregarding the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Rule 10(I)(iii)(C) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 and the principles laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments: -- ' Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan's case 1991 SCM R 2164, Maqbool Ahmad Fateh Elahi's case 1992 SCM R 2342 and Muhammad Iqbal's case 1992 SCM R 1245.
6. He further submits that the learned trial Court erred in law to rely upon Exh.A-8, judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, dated 31-5-1992 in case of Muhammad 4min etc. v. Land Acquisition Collector in Petition No,7/4 of 1987 to enhance the compensation because the said judgment was not inter parties as the respondents were not party to the aforesaid petition. Therefore, they had to prove their case independently by producing evidence before the trial Court. He further contends that the learned trial Court decided the case beyond the parameters prescribed by this Court in remand order, dated 1-12-1990. According to him, the judgment of this Court in earlier round of litigation in R.F.As. Nos.90 and 91 of 1989 is final between the parties. He complained that the learned trial Court kept out of consideration the documentary evidence produced by the appellants. He contended that the land of respondent No,9 and others measuring 3 Kanals, 14 Marlas was acquired vide notification dated 22-4-1990 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the same Revenue estate adjacent to the land in question for which compensation was awarded @ Rs,46,000 per acre. They accepted the same and did not claim any reference with regard to said acquisition. According to him, if the market value of the land in the Revenue estate in 1990 was Rs,46,000 per acre, it could not be the same in the year 1981.
7. He further submits that respondents relied upon the following documents:
(i) Exh.A/1 certified ,copy of Bank statement dated 10-2-1988.
(ii) Exh.A/2 letter, dated 26-9-1987 of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang to the Deputy Commissioner qua the land in question for estimation at the rate of Rs,46,000 per acre.
(iii) A/3 Mutation No, 657, dated 16-1-1983 which reveals the land measuring 32 Kanals were sold for Rs,9,00,000.
(iv) Exh.A/4 copy of notice sent to Mst. Sughran Bibi and others.
(v) Exh.A/5 memorandum of Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore dated 15-5-1985 whereby estimated cost of all Chaks/villages out of Municipal limits, were assessed at the rate of Rs,46,000 per acre alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges.
(vi) Exh.A/6 memorandum of Board of Revenue, dated 3-3-1986 which reveals that price of the land of village Kauriana Janubi Tehsil and District Jhang should be reassessed in the light of price approved in respect to other villages vide memorandum of Board of Revenue, dated 15-5-1985.
(vii) Exh.P./7 Khasra Girdawari which reveals kind of land acquired by the appellants in question.
' Exh.A/8 certified judgment and decree, dated 31-5-1992 of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang in Muhammad Amin etc. v. Land Acquisition Collector.
' According to the learned counsel for the appellants all the aforesaid documents were after the date of notification dated 3-6-1981 and did not establish that the respondents were entitled to compensation @ Rs,46,000 per acre. He further submits that the learned trial Court erred in law to rely upon the statement of A.W.3, Javaid Ahmad, Advocate. Admittedly the land of father of the A.W.3 was not situated in village Kauraiana and is situated in Mauza Jhang Shamuli. Therefore, statement of A.W.3 was not relevant to determine the compensation of the land in question which is situated in another village. He further contends that appellants produced the following documentary evidence which was not considered by the learned trial Court;
(i) Exhs.R/1 to R/3 notice to the owners issued by the appellants under the Land Acquisition for the purpose of service of respondent No,1 and predecessor-in-interest of the other respondents.
(ii) Exhs.R/4 to R/7 certified copies of Naqsha in respect of Chak Kauriana.
(iii) R/8 to R/20 copies of different mutations attested on 1-6-1981, 8-2-1986, 2-6-1981, 1-6-1981, 16- 12-1980, 29-7-1981 and 2-6-1981.
(iv) The average market price comes to Rs,9,00,000 per acre.
(v) Exh.R/21 register Haqdaran Zameen.
(vi) R/22 Notification of acquisition of land measuring 3 Kanals, 14 Marlas of respondent No,9 and others on 2-4-1990.
(vii) Exh.R/23 award in question dated 2-6-1987.
(viii) Exh.R/24 award dated 6-7-1991 qua the land acquired by the appellants of respondents vide Notification dated 2-4-1990 and compensation was awarded to them at the rate of Rs,46,000 per acre.
(ix) Exh.R/25 certified copy of t) which reveals the average sale price of Rs,9,553.60 per acre.
' The learned counsel for the appellants summed up his submissions by contending that the learned trial Court enhanced the compensation without adverting to the aforesaid documents on the basis of the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 31-5-1992 (Exh.A8), the memorandum issued by the Board of Revenue (Exhs.A5 and A6) who had no authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to determine compensation of the land in question except that it could determine only the estimated cost.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Muhammad Amin etc. Whose land is adjacent to the land of the respondents in the same Revenue estate, was acquired by the appellants under the same Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3-6-1981 and the same award was impugned by them before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang.
Therefore, judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge was admissible in evidence to determine the compensation of the land in question by virtue of Article 26 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. He further submits that the compensation was enhanced through the impugned judgment by relying upon the estimated cost approved by the Board of Revenue in Exhs.A.5 and A.6. Further submits that appellants did not challenge the aforesaid judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge before this Court. Therefore, the appellants are estopped to challenge the impugned judgment and decree on the well-known principle of waiver and estoppel. He further submits that the landowners of the same locality, whose lands were acquired by the appellants received the compensation at the rate of Rs,46,000 per acre. Therefore, any inconsistent decision will bring about discrimination between the owners of the same area which will be hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that the learned trial Court decided the case within the parameters prescribed by this Court in the remand order.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record ourselves. The respondents claimed compensation of their own land measuring 12-1/2 acres on the basis of Exh.A5 and Exh.A6 and the letter dated 26-9-1987 of Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner. It is admitted fact that land of Muhammad Amin etc., the co-villagers was also acquired under the same Notification dated 3-6- 1981 alongwith the land of the respondents and against the same award dated 2-6-1987 Muhammad Amin etc. Filed reference under section 18 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang who enhanced the compensation @ Rs,46,000 per acre vide judgment Exh.A/8. The question for determination for us is whether the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, dated 31-5-1992 in case of Muhammad Amin etc. Is admissible or not. It is settled principle of law that previous decisions in land acquisition cases are relevant in a subsequent cases where the market value of lands in the same neighbourhood is in issue. In forming this view, we are fortified by Madan Mohan Burman v. Secretary of Estate of India 78 Indian Cases 557 (AIR 1925 Cal. 481). The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:-- "The reason he gave was that in these cases the awards were made as the result of decisions given by the Civil Court in judicial proceedings and he held that the judgments were inadmissible under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act relating to judgments and orders. We are unable to agree with him on this point. In assessing the market value of a piece of land the price paid in other transactions relating to land in neighbourhood must he of some value. What its value is, it is for the Court of fact to determine but we hold that it cannot be rejected as inadmissible on the ground given in the judgment of the learned President."
10. It may also be noted that the Privy Council hat' admitted in evidence judgments and orders A between tae came rallies for certain purpose and with certain objects in the subsequent suits.
Reference may be made to:-- ' Ram Ranjan Chuckerbutty v. Ram Narain Singh and others (1984) 22 IA 60, Bitto Kunwar's case (1897) 24 IA 10.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that two R.F.As. Nos.22 of 1993 and 216 of 1992 were filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, dated 31-5-1992 (Exh.A.8) by both the parties. These appeals were dismissed by this Court vide judgment, dated 17-2-2000 maintaining the judgment, dated 31-5-1992. Memorandum of Board of Revenue dated 15-5-1985 (Exh.A.5) was also relied upon in the case of Muhammad Amin etc. This brings the case of Muhammad Amin etc. And present respondents at par. We, therefore, follow the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in judgment, dated 17-2-2000 in R.F.As. Nos.22 of 1993 and 216 of 1992. Even evidence of A. W.3 was excluded, the 'impugned judgment is sustainable on the basis of the memorandum of the Board of Revenue wherein, it had approved the estimated cost of the land in question @ of Rs,46,000 per acre vide Exhs.A5 and A.6.
12. It may, however, be noted that according to A.W.3 the land of the respondents was situated on the 'hang. Chiniot Road. It had, thus, a better potential than the land situated elsewhere in the Revenue estate for which compensation was awarded by the Civil Court @ of Rs,46,000 per acre.
We have also noticed that A.W.4, Abdul Qayyum made the following statement:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' He was not cross-examined and thus, his statement has to be given full credit, to be accepted as true unless displaced by reliable and cogent evidence. Reference may be made to Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through Legal Representatives v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi 1991 SCM R 2300 and Luqman v. Yar Muhammad and 3 others 1985 CLC 2327.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned trial Court in arriving at the impugned conclusion which is eminently just and correct and the same is confirmed.
14. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.