GHULAM KHAN and another vs COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, MANSEHRA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which declined to enhance compensation awarded in land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the refusal to increase compensation was legally unjustified given the specific observations made by the High Court itself. The High Court had noted in its impugned judgment that the case suffered from insufficient evidence, specifically pointing out a lack of proof regarding the proximity of the suit land to the main Abadi and an absence of evidence concerning the market price of lands in the immediate vicinity. The Supreme Court considered the contention that the High Court's own findings regarding the evidentiary gaps should have led to a different outcome or further inquiry rather than a summary rejection of the enhancement request. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the claim for enhanced compensation despite acknowledging the evidentiary deficiencies in the record presented before it.
- Can a court reject a claim for enhanced compensation in land acquisition proceedings solely on the basis of insufficient evidence regarding the land's location and market value?
- Does the acknowledgment of evidentiary gaps by a High Court necessitate further inquiry rather than the dismissal of a claim for enhanced compensation?
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C. J-Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that in land acquisition proceedings composition has been granted but the High Court has rejected the request for enhancement of compensation and has made the following observation in the impugned judgment: "Frankly speaking it is a case of insufficient evidence on record. There has not been adduced evidence about the locale of the suit land as at what distance the suit land is situate from the main Abadi. There has not been adduced evidence in respect of the price of lands in the close vicinity of the suit land."
2. It is submitted that rejection of request for enhancement of compensation was not justified in view of the observation made above. Leave is granted to consider the above contention.