2021 Y L R 2310
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
---Ss. 4, 23, 17 & Preamble---Compensation, determination of---Commercial nature of acquired land---Proof---Price of acquired land was assessed as agricultural one---Contention of the appellants was that their acquired land was commercial in nature as the same was situated at a distance of 1 to 1.5 furlong from main road---
(Naeem)
Validity---Though attorney of the appellants deposed in his evidence that that the property-in-question was commercial in nature as the same was situated at a distance of 1 to 1.5 furlong from main road, however, he admitted in cross-examination that he did not append any documentary evidence regarding said stance with the objections filed under S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector; and that he was also unable to produce any such documentary evidence before the Referee Court while deposing evidence---Said attorney also admitted that land-in-question was agricultural in the beginning---On the contrary, witness of the respondents (acquiring agency) produced material documents (sale-mutations of relevant period, correspondence/process qua acquisition/ approval adopted by the respondents etc.) showing the market value of the land-in-question---Appellants were under legal obligation to prove the claim of their land being commercial through leading trustworthy, corroborative and unimpeachable evidence but neither they mentioned in their statement any contemporary sale transaction of land nor produced in their documentary evidence any sale deeds/mutations immediately adjacent to the acquired land---Appellants had also not produced any valid document (Parcha Aks Shajra, visual site plan etc.) to demonstrate exact location of acquired land to prove their stance that acquired land was situated near the main road---No material/ concrete oral as well as documentary evidence was made available on record by the appellants to substantiate their asserted stance---Trial Court had rightly dismissed the reference---No illegality, material irregularity or misreading of evidence was found in impugned judgment and decree passed by the Referee Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 71---Land Acquisition Act (Iof 1894), S.23 & Preamble---Compensation, determination of---Commercial nature of acquired land--- Proof--- Hearsay evidence--- Effect--- Price of acquired land was assessed as agricultural one---Plea of the appellants (landowners) was that compensation for their land, acquired for construction of by-pass, should be given to them at the commercial rate, whereas the price was wrongly assessed as that of agricultural land---Validity---Appellants, apart from their attorney, also produced two witnesses but they deposed/admitted in their cross-examination that they had no personal knowledge about lis and had deposed whatever knowledge was given to them by the appellants---Statements of said witnesses were based on mere hearsay evidence which had narrow scope of intrinsic value until and unless the same had been corroborated with other evidence, whereas Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 required that oral evidence shall be direct and such hearsay evidence was not admissible---Appeal was dismissed.
(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 132---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S.23 & Preamble---Compensation, determination of---Commercial nature of acquired land---Proof---Statement of the witness(es) not cross-examined by the opposing party---Effect---Price of acquired land was assessed as agricultural one---Plea of the appellants (landowners) was that compensation for their land, acquired for construction of by-pass, should have been given to them at the commercial rate, whereas the price was wrongly assessed as that of agricultural land---Validity---Witness (colony clerk) of the respondents (acquiring agency) produced material documents (sale-mutations of relevant period, correspondence qua acquisition/approval adopted by the respondents etc.) showing the market value of the land-in-question; and statement of said witness was not cross-examined by the appellants, as such, said statement would be deemed to be admitted---Appeal was dismissed.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XIII, Rr. 3 & 4---Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S.23 & Preamble---Production and exhibiting of documents---Scope---Compensation, determination of---Record revealed that the documentary evidence of the appellants had been produced in trial proceedings by their counsel in his statement, which was not a valid tendering of documents---Law required that the documents relied upon or on basis of which the case had been filed, should be produced in the evidence by party itself and fair opportunity should be given to the opposite party to cross-examine the same---In the present case, the documents produced by the appellants' counsel could not be relied upon as valid piece of evidence and ordinarily such documents were excluded from being taken into consideration-
0 Comments