NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This judgment will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2751-L and 2752-L of 2000. Which are directed against the judgment dated 10-10-2000 of a learned Division Bench, Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby R.F.As. Nos.77 of 1994 and 41 of 1995 were dismissed by a consolidated judgment.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this Petition No,2751-L of 2000 (R.F.A. No,77 of 1994) are that Water and Power Development Authority had acquired land measuring 1234 Kanals, 18 Marlas in village Kotla and 770 Kanals, 15 Marlas in village Hala in Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh, for public purpose i.e, construction of a Power Station of 220 K.V. Grid Station and a colony for its employees. Necessary notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 17-5-1984. After completion of all formalities an Award in respect of land in question was delivered by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27-9-1984 at the following rates:-- Village Kotla = 714 Kanals @ Rs,80,000 per acre 520 Kanals, 8 Marlas @ Rs,38,500 per acre 1234 Kanals, 8 Marlas Village Hala = 60 Kanals, 20 Marlas 80,000 per acre 293 Kanals, 2 Marlas @ 65,000 per acre 417 Kan als, 1 Marla @ 30,000 per acre.
770 Kanals, 15 Marlas
3. The respondents being owners of the acquired land and dissatisfied with the Award had filed an application, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for enhancement of the compensation.
Accordingly, reference was made to learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh for above purpose, which was fully contested by the petitioner.
4. On strength of the pleading of parties, learned Senior Civil Judge settled the issues. In support of their claim, the respondents examined Umar Farooq Ehasan P.W.-1, Muhammad Akram Patwari P.W.-2 and Muhammad Waris, respondent P.W.-3. They also produced copies of Register HaqDaran Zameen (Exhs.P.1 and P.2), copies of Khasra Girdawari (Exhs.P.3 and P.4), copies of the Award (Exhs.P.5 and P.6), copies of mutations (Exh.P.7 to P.27), a copy of Aks Parcha (Exh.P.28) and a copy of Jamabandi (Exh.P.29). The petitioner neither produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of its case, but only submitted copies of the proceedings of acquisition and the Award.
5. Having taken into consideration the evidence brought on record, learned Senior Civil Judge, vide judgment dated 2-3-1994 enhanced the amount of compensation in respect of land Mouza Kotla from Rs,44,500 per acre to Rs,73,104 per acre, and ordered the petitioner to make payment to the respondents at the enhanced rate after deducting amount of compensation awarded to them alongwith 15% compulsory acquisition charges on the remaining amount. Besides above, learned Senior Civil Judge also held that the respondents were entitled to compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the outstanding dues from the date of compensation till the date the balance was paid. The claim of the respondents, however, to the extent of village Hata was dismissed.
6. Being dissatisfied by above judgment, the petitioner challenged it before High Court through R.F.A. No,77 of 1994.
7. The facts of R.F.A. No,41 of 1995 and R.F.A. No,77 of 1994 almost are identical with the exception that impugned order in the R.F.A. No,41 of 1995 before High. Court was dated 10-11-1994 and the compensation was enhanced from Rs,80,000 per acre in village Kotla to Rs,2,00,000 per acre.
8. Two main contentions were raised before High Court. Firstly, it was argued that the amount of compensation having been accepted and received by the respondents they were not competent to file applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, secondly, it was urged that there was no legal justification for enhancement of the compensation.
9. Learned High Court dealing with first contention, had observed, as follows:-- "...On the contrary not only the respondents did not accept the Collector's award but being dissatisfied raised objections thereto and stated the grounds for such objections. They also did not, before exercising their rights, factually receive the compensation amount offered by the Collector as per his award but instead filed applications before him requiring him, inter alia, to refer their objections to the compensation awarded for determination by the Court. In this set of circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention that the respondents had in any manner demonstrated their intention to accept the award and they thereby lost statutory right or remedy to receive enhanced compensation as determined by the Court for their acquired lands. We are inclined to hold that the applications under section 18 submitted to the Collector for references were competent and validly made..."
10. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and with their assistance gone through the record.
11. We are of the view that the respondents had never accepted the Awards and were totally dissatisfied from them. The findings of High Court are perfectly correct and not open to any exception. As regards second contention, it is noted that the finding of learned Senior Civil Judge is supported by substantial evidence about market price of the land inquestion.
It is significant to note that no evidence was led by the petitioner in rebuttal. Although, the witnesses produced by the respondents stated about market price of the land, as well as, about other sale, which had taken place in the area, but they were not cross-examined on that point.
Muhammad Waris (W.P.3) stated that market price of the land in the area was Rs,2,00,000 per acre and there were houses and orchards on the land in question and that adjacent and similar land was acquired by the Railways Department at the rate of Rs,4,00,000 per acre. These assertions were not challenged in the cross-examination, as such, are to be taken as correct. Learned High Court in the impugned judgment stated that average sale price on the basis of mutation available on record and the average was higher than the rate of compensation awarded by learned Senior Civil Judge to the respondents.
12. It was also argued before High Court, as well as before this Court that though the land of these appeals are identical in nature and also situated in the same vicinity, yet, by different rate the compensation was determined. High Court dealt with above plea and observed that land of R.F.A.
No,77 of 1994 was mostly uncultivated, whereas land of R.F.A. No,41 of 1995 was cultivated land with orchards and crops available thereon. Thus, being the difference there was justification in determining the rate of compensation by two different rates. Accordingly, second contention is also without any force.
In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petitions are dismissed.