MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ RATYAL

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD NASIM, J.--- The captioned appeals, by leave of the Court, arise out of one and the same judgment dated 18th October, 2023, passed by the High Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 64 and 115 of 2014. As both the appeals involve common question of facts and law, therefore are heard together and decided as such.

2.The precise facts forming the background of the captioned appeals are that vide award No.03/LAC/07, dated 21.05.2007, land comprising survey No.142 (old), 2131, 2135 and 2163, khewat No. 1/1, measuring 44 kanal , 2 marla , 7 sarsai , situate at village Sonkiah was acquired by Collector Land Acquisition, Mirpur ( hereinafter to be referred as "Collector "), for construction of Model Town, Mirpur Development Authority, Mirpur. The compensation of the said land was assessed as Rs.2,86,044/- per kanal , besides 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Feeling dissatisfied from the determination of the compensation by the Collector, the landowner/appellant, herein, filed reference application before the District/Reference Judge, Mirpur. It was claimed by him that the land in dispute is situated within the municipal limits and the price of the lands adjacent to the acquired land is not less than Rs.25,00,000/- per kanal . The Collector has determined the compensation of the acquired land arbitrarily without having regard to the potential value of the land. It was further stated that at present the market value of the acquired land is not less than the aforesaid amount. The reference was contested by the respondent, therein, by filing objections whereby the claim of the landowner was refuted in toto. It was stated in the objections that the compensation has been determined according to the market value of the land. The acquired land is not of the value of Rs.25,00,000/- per kanal , as per the claim of the landowner. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Reference Judge, Mirpur, framed issues and parties were directed to lead evidence pro and contra. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Reference Judge, Mirpur, enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- per kanal , besides 15% compulsory acquisition charges, vide judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2014. The appellant/landowner, feeling dissatisfied, filed appeal before the High Court for further enhancement of the compensation, whereas the acquiring agency also filed cross appeal for setting aside the judgment of the Reference Judge Mirpur. The learned High Court, while concurring with the findings recorded by the Reference Judge, dismissed both the appeals through the impugned consolidated judgment dated 18.10.2023, hence these appeals, by leave of the Court.

3.Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant/landowner, after narration of necessary facts submitted that both the Reference Judge as well as the learned High Court have failed to properly appreciate the evidence brought on the record in relation to the market value of the acquired land. He further submitted that the landowner through oral as well as documentary evidence proved that at the time of acquisition of the land, the market value of the same was Rs.2500,000/- per kanal . He alleged that exclusion of legally admissible evidence without any legal justification has resulted into miscarriage of justice, therefore, while accepting the appeal, the market value of the awarded property be determined in the light of documentary evidence produced by the landowner. He further alleged that the learned Reference Judge, Mirpur, in another reference application titled Abdul Majeed and others v. MDA and others filed against the same award, enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/- per kanal and the same has been upheld by this Court vide judgement dated 27.07.2020, passed in review petition titled MDA and others v. Reference Judge and others .

4.While arguing in cross appeal filed by the MDA, he submitted that the acquiring agency has no locus standi to file the appeal and the grounds taken in its appeal are totally misconceived as well as against law. The acquiring agency has failed to bring on record any legal justification in support of its contentions, hence, its appeal may be dismissed.

5.On the other hand, Mr. Javaid Najam-us-Saqib, the learned Advocate appearing for the acquiring agency, argued that the findings of the Courts below are contrary to law as well as record of the case and the same have been passed on insufficient evidence. He further argued that the compensation was already determined by the Collector excessively and further enhancement by the learned Reference Judge is not justified and legal. He alleged that the sale-deeds referred to and relied upon by the landowner were not considerable under sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because the landowner has failed to prove that the location, nature and potential value of the land sold through the said sale-deeds and that of the acquired land are same. The learned Advocate prayed that while accepting the appeal filed by the acquiring agency, the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court dated 18.10.2023 as well as the judgment of the learned Reference Judge dated 31.03.2014, may be recalled and the compensation determined by the Collector may be restored.

6.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment. A perusal of the record reveals that the land owned by Muhammad Naważ Ratyal, appellant, herein, comprising survey No.142 (old), 2131, 2135 and 2163, khewat No. 1/1, measuring 44 kanal , 2 marla , 7 sarsai , situate at village Sonkiah, was acquired by the Collector through award No. 03/LAC/07, dated 21.05.2007. The compensation of the acquired land was determined and fixed by the Collector as Rs.2,86,044/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The landowner was not satisfied from the said determination of the compensation, hence, he filed reference application before the Reference Judge, Mirpur, for enhancement. The learned Reference Judge, Mirpur, accepted the reference and enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.400,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges, vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2014. Both the parties i.e. the landowner and the acquiring agency challenged the said judgment of the Reference Court by way of separate appeals before the High Court. The learned High Court dismissed both the appeals vide impugned consolidated judgment and decrees dated 18.10.2023.

7.The landowner, in support of his claim, produced Gulzar Hussain and Naseer Ahmed, as witnesses. Muhammad Nawaz Ratyal, the landowner, also appeared before the Reference Court and got recorded his statement. Besides oral evidence, the landowner also produced documentary evidence i.e. copy of award Exh. PA, copy of Asamiwara Exh. PB and Sale-deeds Exh. PD to PH and PJ. The acquiring agency produced Ch. Arshad Mehboob, Director Estate Management, as witness. The contention of the learned counsel for the landowner that the Courts below have not considered the market and potential value of the acquired land in its true perspective, is devoid of any force. Although, some of the acquired land in village Sonkiah is situated within the municipal limits and has been utilized for commercial purpose but from the perusal of the evidence lead by the landowner, it does not transpire that the acquired land, owned by the appellant, is also a part of that land. In the statement of witnesses, no comparison has been demonstrated in this regard.

8.The other contention of the learned Advocate representing the landowner that the documentary evidence in shape of sale-deeds has not been considered by the courts below and the compensation has not been enhanced in the light of the sale-deeds which were executed before the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, has also no substance in it. It may be stated here that mere tendering of sale-deeds is not sufficient to prove the market value of the land until and unless the landowner substantiates through cogent and convincing evidence that the nature, location and potential value of the land sold through the sale-deeds and that of the acquired land are same. In the present case, the landowner has failed to prove that the nature, location and potential value of the land sold through the sale-deeds tendered by him in evidence and the land owned by him are identical, hence, the Courts below have rightly discarded the same while enhancing the compensation amount. The learned counsel for the landowner heavily relied upon the judgment dated 27.07.2020, passed by this Court in review petition titled MDA and others v. Reference Judge and others while submitting that against the same award, the learned Reference Judge enhanced the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and the said judgment has been upheld by this Court in the aforesaid review petition. It is pertinent to mention here that the rule of law laid down in a precedent is only attracted where the circumstances of the cases are same. The evidence recorded in a civil case cannot be considered in the judgment of another case until and unless the cases were consolidated and tried as such by the Courts below, hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/landowner is hereby repelled.

9.After perusing the entire record, we are of the view that reasonable compensation has been enhanced by the Reference Judge on the basis of sketchy evidence and further enhancement on the basis of the available record is not justified. The enhancement on the basis of judgment rendered in another case can neither be claimed nor the same is justified to be considered until and unless it is proved through cogent and concrete evidence that the location, nature and potential value of the land sold through the sale-deeds tendered in evidence and that of the acquired land are same. Reference may be made to an unreported judgment delivered in the case titled Kaneez Bi v. Azad Government and others (Civil Appeal No.107/2015, decided on 17.06.2017) , wherein, it has been observed as under:-

In the instant case, the appellant/landowner has failed to substantiate that location, nature and potential value of the land sold through the sale-deeds and that of the acquired land are identical, therefore, the sale-deeds tendered by the landowner in evidence are not helpful to him. In this state of affairs, it can safely be concluded that the appellant/landowner has failed to prove his claim. The learned Reference Judge has already enhanced the adequate compensation and further enhancement on the basis of available record is not justified at all. The learned counsel for the acquiring agency has rightly contended that the compensation cannot be enhanced on the basis of surmises and conjectures and for enhancement in the compensation, the landowner has to prove his case in the light of the provisions contained in sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

In view of the above stated facts and reasons, both the appeals have no substance, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

JK/46/SC(AJ&K) Appeals dismissed.