WAPDA through Legal Advisor WAPDA/Director (Legal) WAPDA Versus Mst. INAYAT BEGUM
MASOOD A. SHEIKH, J.--- These appeals have been directed against the consolidated judgment of the High Court dated 12.04.2014, whereby the appeals filed by the appellants-landowners have been accepted and the compensation amount has been enhanced whereas, the appeal filed by the WAPDA has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that vide award No. 127/2007 dated 29.09.2007, the Collector, Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Zone-I, Mirpur acquired the land measuring 2249 kanal, 18, marla situate in village Thothal, Tehsil Mirpur for the purpose of upraising of Mangla Dam. Through the said award the land of Inayat Begum and others, measuring 1 kanal, 18 marla 4-1/2 sarsai, the land of Abdul Rehman and others measuring 3 kanal 19 marla and 15 sarsai and the land of Walayat Hussain and others, measuring 6 kanal 7 marla and 5 sarsai was acquired. Feeling dissatisfied from the awarded amount of compensation, the land owners filed references before the Reference Judge, Mangla Dam Raising Project, Mirpur. It was averred that the market value of the acquired land has been assessed and fixed much below the prevailing market value of land in the area. It was claimed that according to the valuation table issued by the Collector, District Mirpur, the market value of the land situate in village Thothal comes to Rs.8,40,000/- per kanal. It was also averred that some land adjacent to the acquired land has been sold against a consideration of Rs.50,000/- per marla which counts towards per kanal as price of the land comes to Rs. 10,00,000/-. It was claimed that the land owned by the appellants-landowners is worth ten million rupees per kanal and the appellants-landowners are entitled to get the same. All the references were contested by the Collector Land Acquisition and WAPDA by filing objections. The learned Reference Judge after necessary proceedings, vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2008 enhanced the amount at compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- per kanal for the kind of land Maira Awal , 4,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- per kanal for the kind of land Maira Doim, Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- per kanal for the kind of land Deger Ghair Mumkan and Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- per kanal for the kind of land Ghair Mumkin Aabadi, along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The appellants-landowners filed separate appeals before the High Court for further enhancement of compensation whereas, WAPDA filed an appeal for setting-aside the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2008. The learned High Court dismissed the appeal filed by WAPDA and accepted the appeals of the land-owners while enhancing the amount of compensation in the following manner:--
S. #
Kind of land
Compensation enhanced by Reference Judge
Further enhancement by this Court
1.
Maira Awal
5,00,000/-
6,00,000/-
2.
Maria Doim
4,00,000/-
5,00,000/
3.
Deger Ghair Mumkin
1,00,000/-
2,00,000/-
4.
Ghair Mumkin Aabadi
6,00,000/-
7,00,00/
The land-owners have filed the instant appeals for further enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas, WAPDA has filed the appeals for setting-aside the impugned judgment and decree of the High Court.
3. As the identical legal proposition is involved in all the above titled appeals against a consolidated judgment of the High Court, therefore, we propose to dispose of the same through the single judgment.
4. Ch. Muhammad Afzal Advocate, the learned counsel for WAPDA and Collector Land Acquisition, after narration of necessary facts of the instant case argued that the reference Judge enhanced the amount of compensation without taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them before him. No cogent evidence has been brought on the record, therefore, the amount of compensation has illegally been enhanced in favour of the land-owners. Likewise, the learned Judge in the High Court has further enhanced the amount without any substance. He further submitted that the land owners did not appear before the reference Court to corroborate the contents of their references and documentary evidence. They did not appear before the Collector Land Acquisition to file the objections after the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the High Court as well as of the reference Court is not maintainable. Hence, the amount of compensation determined by the Collector Land Acquisition requires restoration.
5. While controverting the arguments, Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the land-owners submitted that the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition was issued on 02.01.2005 and thereafter the award was issued on 29.02.2007 after a period of more than two years. He further argued that the land-owners produced the documentary evidence i.e., the sale-deeds and the relevant revenue record as well in support of their version but the Collector and WAPDA failed to contradict or rebut the evidence of the land-owners, in any manner. He further argued that the acquired land is very precious for the reason that same is situated near to road, within the territorial limits of Municipal Corporation and in the vicinity of the residential area. He further submitted that the amount of compensation determined by the Collector is a meager amount and the same is not equivalent to the market value of the land. Nobody in the area intended to sell or even agree for acquisition of the land. He forcefully contended that the reference Court has ignored the documentary evidence vis-a-vis sale-deeds, Exh.PE and Exh.PI. The learned High Court has not enhanced the compensation in accordance with the amount of market/sale value mentioned in the said sale-deeds. The amount of compensation should have been fixed at least at the rates mentioned in the said sale-deeds.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record made available. It is an admitted fact that the land measuring 2249 kanal 18 marla including the land of the land-owners situated in village Thothal, Tehsil Mirpur was acquired for the benefit of WAPDA vide award No. 127/2007 dated 29.09.2007 issued by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Mangla Dam Raising Project. It is also admitted position that the land is situated within the territorial limits of the Municipal Corporation, Mirpur. The Collector himself has observed in the award that the land is situated within the Municipal Limits. The disputed land is highly precious. The observations made by the Collector Land Acquisition, in the award are as follows:--
From perusal of the observations made by the Collector Land Acquisition, it is reflected from record made available that the acquired land being situated in the Municipal limits and agricultural in nature, is highly precious. The Collector Land Acquisition has observed that all the relevant factors have been considered but despite that he has assessed the compensation against his own observations. The land-owners demanded the compensation @ Rs. 10,000,000/- (ten million) per kanal. They have brought on record the documentary evidence i.e., sale-deeds of the land situated in Mozia Thothal in support of their contention. The sale-deed "Ex.PE" (registered on 28.04.2007) shows that the land measuring 16 marla situated in village Thothal was sold against the price of Rs.8,00,000/- moreover, another sale-deed "Ex.PI" (registered on 22.05.2006) shows that the land measuring 10 marla has been sold against a consideration of Rs. 6,75,000/-. The land-owners also produced the witnesses i.e., Azhar Mehmood, Muhammad Nazir, and Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, who deposed that the land situated within limits of Municipal Corporation Mirpur, has a market price not less than Rs.70,000/- per marla.
7. Although the valuation table cannot be made a sole yardstick for determination of market value of the acquired land, however, the same can be considered one of the helping factors coupled with others for determination of market value of the land. The best evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land may be the sale-deeds executed prior to the issuance of notification under section 4 and the sale deeds executed thereafter within 12 months period in the same vicinity. If the sale-deeds of the land situated in the same village are not available then the sale-deeds executed in the adjoining village can be considered while determining the market value of the land. The perusal of record shows that in all the reference applications the land-owners have heavily relied upon the valuation table issued by the Collector, District Mirpur, for the purpose of realizing the stamp duty etc. The land-owners apart from the valuation table have also relied upon the sale-deeds Exh.PE and Exh.PI, thus, for the purpose of determination of market value the sale-deeds and the valuation table are the relevant documents which may be taken into consideration. This Court in a case titled Ch. Muhammad Siddique Advocate and others v. Azad Government others (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2010, decided on 15.07.2011.) while dealing with the identical proposition observed in para 9 as follows:--
"9. The appellants have attached with their reference, a sale-deed, executed on 07.06.2000, through which 11 marlas of the land in village Ballah was sold at the price of Rs. 22,00,000/- per kanal. Another sale-deed executed on 04.02.2006, through which 2 kanal and 3-1/2 marlas land was sold at the price of 21,86,000/- per kanal. Another document which is notification of Collector District Mirpur dated 31.12.2002, in which price of different lands has been shown through valuation table. As provided in the said notification, in village Ballah, the Agricultural land is valued at Rs. 1,10,000/- per marla, meaning thereby that the price of one kanal is valued at Rs. 22,00,000/- per kanal. Though the appellants have also filed a sale-deed of plot No.13 measuring one kanal in Sector F-3 Mirpur, and price of said land has been paid as Rs. 1,80,00,000/- per kanal. In our view this sale-deed pertains to a developed sector of Mirpur city hence, it is not in comparison with the land situated in village Ballah through the said village is within the Municipal limits of Municipal Corporation Mirpur. We are of the considered view that the Collector, the learned Reference judge and the learned Chief Justice of the High Court have not kept in view the market value of the land. Respondents, herein, in appeal No. 25 of 2010, who are appellants in Appeal No. 26 of 2010 have not produced any evidence, oral of documentary, whatsoever, before the learned Reference Judge."
Thus, for determination of the market value of the land the valuation table issued by the District Collector is also relevant. In the valuation table the District Collector, for the purpose of realizing Court fee and Stamp duty, has determined the value of the agricultural land situate in village Thothal as 42,000 per marla which comes to 8,40,000/- per kanal. It will be useful to reproduce here the valuation table which reads as follows:--
Thus, for the determination of the market value of the land the valuation table issued by the Collector District Mirpur, and sale-deeds registered on 28.04.2007 and 22.05.2006 (Exh.PE and Exh.PI) are to be considered side by side.
8. The sale-deeds relied upon by the land-owners show that the land measuring 16 marlas situate in the same vicinity has been sold against the price of 8,00,000/- (i.e., 50,000/- per marla) and the land measuring 10 marla has been sold against consideration of Rs.6,75,000/- (i.e., 67,500/- per marla). Moreover, the valuation table reveals the price of land to be 42,000/- per marla (i.e., 8,40,000/- per kanal).
9. In a recent judgment delivered in the case titled Malik Muhammad Yousaf and others v. Azad Govt. and others (Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2014, decided 11.05.2015), this Court has determined the compensation of the acquired land in the light of the amount prescribed in the valuation table and sale-deeds relied upon thereof. In the referred case the average value of the sale-deeds and that of valuation table was almost the same, whereas, in the case reported as Akhtar Hussain and others v. Azad Govt. and others 2014 MLD 179 this Court has determined the market value of the acquired land while taking into consideration the sale-deeds executed in the same vicinity.
In the case in hand as per valuation table the price of the agricultural land for Mozia Thothal has been fixed as 42,000/- per marla. The land-owners also brought on record in evidence the sale-deeds executed in the same vicinity. Therefore, while following the dictum laid down in the referred judgments the compensation of awarded land shall be determined while taking into consideration the average value of the land prescribed in the valuation table (i.e., 42,000/- per marla) and sale-deeds (i.e., Rs. 50,000/- and 67500/- per marla), which, comes to Rs.53,166/- per marla (i.e., 10,63,333/- per kanal).
10. The perusal of judgment of the High Court reveals that although the High Court intended to enhance the amount of compensation but the figures mentioned in the price enhancement table show that the High Court has upheld the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Judge. As on the basis of average value of the sale-deeds and valuation table we have fixed the compensation as 10,63,333/- per kanal, therefore, there is no need to record separate findings in this regard.
The result of the above discussion is that the appeals filed by WAPDA have no force, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed, whereas Appeals Nos.159, 160, 161 and 162 filed by the appellants-landowners are accepted in the manner as indicated above. With no order as to the costs.
ZC/50/SC(AJ&K) Appeal allowed.