GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through District Collector, Mardan and 3 others
This direct appeal arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court affirming the enhancement of land compensation by the Referee Judge under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Land in District Mardan was acquired for remodelling a drain. Dissatisfied with the Collector's compensation award, landowners filed objections leading to the Referee Judge fixing compensation at Rs. 1,700 per Marla based on a comparable award for land in the same village. The High Court concurred, prompting the Government to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending the High Court failed to discuss the evidence. The Supreme Court held that both the Referee Judge and the High Court had properly considered the documentary evidence, including the comparable award, in determining fair compensation. The Court ruled that reliance on a contemporaneous award for similar land in the same village is legally justified for enhancing compensation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a Referee Judge and High Court can rely on an award given in another land acquisition proceeding for similar land in the same village to fix fair compensation?
- Does an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land compensation when documentary evidence has been duly considered?
- Section 4, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 6, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 54, Land Acquisition Act 1894
MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---This is a direct appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (No,I of 1894) (hereinafter called as the Act) against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of the Peshawar High Court in affirmance of the order of the learned Referee Judge enhancing the compensation from that awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition.
2. The factual background' of the case which gleaned from the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, is that the land in village Chail, District Mardan, was acquired for the public purpose of "Remodelling of Murdara Drain" by WAPDA SCARP. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued by the Collector Mardan on 28-1-1991. Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued by the Additional Commissioner on 4-1-1992. Award for the determination of compensation for the land so acquired was drawn on 14-6-1993. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, Land Acquisition, the appellants filed their objection petition under section 18 of the Act. The two respondents also filed a similar objection petition wherein they had claimed fixation of .The price of the land acquired at the rate of Rs,8,000 per Marla. On receipt of reference by the Collector and after inviting the written statement, settling the issues, and recording the evidence, the learned District Judge held on the basis of Award No,211 dated 22-11-1992 drawn for the other land also acquired in village Chail, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs,1,700.
3. The respondents/owners, feeling aggrieved, challenged the finding of the learned District Judge in the Peshawar High Court by way of filing R.F.A. No,32 of 1995. A learned Single Judge of the High Court concurred with the finding of the learned District Judge in so far as the fixation of Rs,1,700 per Marla was concerned.
4. Feeling still dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned High Court passed in the R.F.A., the.
Government of N.-W.F.P. Have come up in direct appeal to this Court.
5. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Saadat Hussain, learned A.S.C. Appearing on behalf of the appellants-Government, has contended that the learned Judge in Chambers of the Peshawar High Court had not discussed the evidence brought on the record by the parties. He further submitted that it would have been appropriate if the learned Judge had determined the question of amount of compensation, inter alia, with reference to evidence brought by the parties on record in respect of the Award in question. In support of this proposition reliance was placed on the case of Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad etc. v. Sardar. Muhammad Safdar Khan etc. 1998 SCM R 2142.
6.. We have gone through the precedent case of Sardar Muhammad Safdar (supra), There is no cavil with the principle enunciated by this Court referred to above. In the instant case, however, not only, the learned District Judge but also the learned Judge in Chambers adverted to the documentary evidence and after considering it, the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court, observed as under:-- "Since the Court is to take the entire evidence of the parties into account while fixing a fair compensation for the land acquired, in the present case, the Referee Court was left with no choice but to rely upon the award given in another Land Acquisition Proceedings in the same village about the same time regarding similar land. Keeping in view Exh. OW .1/2, Exh OW .1/3 and Exh . OW .1/4, the fixation of Rs,1,700 per Marla appears to be quite reasonable. Thus the judgment and order under appeal does not warrant any interference. The appeal is dismissed."
It would thus be noticed that the learned Single Judge had referred to the documentary evidence in general and Award No,211 dated 22-11-1992 in particular with regard to another piece of land in the same village which was made the basis of the enhancement of the compensation to Rs,1,700 per Marla.
7. We are of the view, therefore, that no legitimate exception can be taken to the order of the learned High Court to affirm the finding of the learned Referee Judge.
8. We concur with the learned High- Court that the learned Referee Judge was absolutely justified to have relied upon Award No,211 for the enhancement of amount of compensation in this case.
This appeal having no merit, therefore, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.