Major ABDUL LATIF And Another vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the enhanced compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge for houses acquired for the Tarbela Dam. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in restoring the Land Acquisition Collector's valuation based on an unproduced report, despite the respondent-department failing to produce any rebuttal evidence before the trial court where the petitioners' evidence remained unrebutted. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised significant force and granted leave to appeal, noting that the respondent-department's failure to produce evidence or the underlying report before the trial court rendered the High Court's reliance improper. The key principle laid down is that where a party fails to produce evidence in rebuttal before the trial court, the unrebutted evidence of the opposing party cannot be lightly disregarded on the basis of unproduced departmental reports.
- Whether the High Court can rely on a report not produced in evidence before the trial court?
- What is the legal effect of a party failing to produce rebuttal evidence before the trial court?
- Can the valuation determined by a Land Acquisition Collector be restored when the opposing party leads no evidence in court?
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Order XVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The facts giving arise to this petition are briefly that two houses, bearing Nos.418 and 423 which belonged. To the petitioner', were acquired for the construction of Tarbela Dam. The award was announced by the Collector, Haripur on 21-10-1971. The compensation award by the Collector for houses in question was as follows:-
(a) House No. 418Rs.16,427.30
(b) House No. 423Rs. 7,792.27
2. The petitioners challenged this award under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur. He claimed the value of the two houses to be as follows: - For House No. 418, Rs.30,000 and For House No. 423, Rs.15,000.
In support of his claim the petitioners produced Malik Haji Ahmad, Overseer CW-1. He also appeared himself as CW-2. The respondent --Department was given several opportunities by the Court to produce its evidence in rebuttal, but failed to avail of the same and did not produced any evidence. It did not even produce the 'report' of the Overseer of the WAPDA, on which the Collector Haripur had based his estimation of the value of the two houses. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, proceeded under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. And fixed the value of the two houses as under: House No. 418Rs.26,156.25 House No. 423Rs.15, 000.00
3. The respondent-Department filed an appeal before the Peshawar High Court which was accepted and it set aside the aforementioned order of the Additional District Judge, holding the value fixed by the Collector.
Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us that since the Department had not produced any evidence whatsoever in the, Court of learned District Judge, Haripur in rebuttal of evidence produced by the petitioners with regard to the two houses acquired by the Government, the learned High Court had erred in relying upon the report of the Overseer of WAPDA, on which the Collector had based his view, because even that report had not been produced by the respondent-Department as evident before the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur and the petitioners' evidence had gone unrebutted before that Court. This contention appears to have some force and we, therefore, granted leave to appeal in this case.
5. Security for cost of the respondents in the sum of Rs.1,000.
6. To be heard on the present record with liberty to the petitioners to file additional documents, if any.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD JAMIL and 4 others 1992 CLC 873