COMMANDANT INDUS RANGERS and others vs ZAHEER MUHAMMAD KHAN

' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This appeal has been directed on behalf of the Commandant Indus Rangers and others under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment, dated 23-5- 2005 passed by learned High Court of Sindh (Hyderabad Circuit) whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent has been accepted.

2. We have heard Raja M. Irshad, learned Deputy Attorney-General on behalf of appellants and Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondent at length and perused the judgment, dated 16.-3-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, as well as the judgment impugned. We have scanned the entire evidence with the eminent assistance of learned counsel. After having an indepth scrutiny of the record we are of the view that learned single Judge of High Court of Sindh (Hyderabad Circuit) has not examined the entire evidence in its true perspective which has come on record. In the same wake of events it has been observed that the documentary evidence led by the parties to substantiate their respective claims have not been taken into consideration. Besides that the judgment of learned Additional District Judge dated 16-3-2002 appears to be comprehensive but reversed without assigning any cogent reasoning. It is worth mentioning that no issue framed to resolve the controversy was discussed.

The provisions as enumerated in section 23 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1894 wherein a criterion has been laid down to determine the compensation escaped the notice of learned single Judge in chambers. It is not known how the potentiality, value of the land and its nature has been determined. The evidence discussed by the learned Additional District Judge in this regard has not been touched. It is also not considered as to whether the land in question was barren, fertile and under cultivation or otherwise? The surroundings of the land in question have not been taken into consideration. It is also not examined as to whether the land was undeveloped and 15% compensation has been allowed by treating it as developed without examining the relevant factors. It is also not considered as to whether any construction has been carried out in the adjacent vicinity in the shape of any residential housing scheme on the basis whereof compensation could be enhanced.

3. We are of the considered view that the above mentioned aspects need a thorough determination on the basis of evidence which has come on record. In such view of the matter we are inclined to accept the appeal by setting aside the judgment impugned and remand the case to learned High Court for afresh decision after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned preferably within a period of four months.

' It is to be noted that Civil Appeal bearing No,2160 of 2004 has been dismissed by this Court being barred by time vide judgment, dated 8-12-2006.