Documents exibit under statement of council are inadmissible in eyes of law.

Stereo. H C J D A-38.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

RFA No.20881 of 2023

National Highway Authority, Islamabad through its

Project Director Zafar Mehmood

Versus

Muhammad Afzal Bhatti & another

J U D G M E N T

Date of hearing: 03.06.2024.

Appellant by:

M/s Muhammad Saim Chaudhary, Dewan

Zakir Hussain

and

Saima Safdar

Chaudhry, Advocates.

Mr. Muhammad Zain Qazi, Assistant

Attorney General on Court’s call.

Respondents

Mr. Najaf Muzammal Khan, Advocate.

Mr. Muhammad Saad Bin Ghazi, Assistant

Advocate General on Court’s call.

MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.-

Through instant appeal, appellant has challenged judgment

dated 07.01.2023, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (Civil

Division), Gujranwala, whereby Reference Application under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act of

1894”), filed by respondent No.1, was accepted and he was

held entitled to get compensation of acquired land @

Rs.20,00,000/- per Acre along with 15% compulsory

acquisition charges, compound interest @ 8% from the date of

possession i.e. date of issuance of Notification u/s 4 of the Act

of 1894 till payment of compensation with interest and costs of

the suit.

Brief facts of the case are that land of respondent No.1

measuring 22 Kanal & 7 Marla situated in village Hayati Tehsil

Kamoki District Gujranwala was acquired for construction of

Lahore-Sialkot Motorway and compensation was granted @

Rs.1,43,750/- per Kanal or Rs.11,50,000/- per Acre through

Award dated 16.06.2017. Respondent No.1 filed Reference

Application for enhancement of compensation of the acquired

RFA No.20881 of 2023

land, which was contested by the Land Acquisition Collector

and appellant / National Highway Authority by filing written

replies. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the Referee

Court framed following issues: -

ISSUES:

Whether petitioner’s property was not evaluated and

assessed by respondents according to market value and

petitioner is being compensated for lesser amount and is

entitled to enhanced compensation? OPA

Whether petitioner is entitled to receive compensation of his

acquired land and damages he sustained @ Rs.20,00,000/-

/25,00,000/- per Acre along with interest instead of

Rs.11,50,000/- per Acre? OPA

Whether possession of petitioner’s property was taken

immediately after issuance of Notification u/s 4 whereas

Award was announced on 16.06.2017? OPA

Whether petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands?

OPR

Whether petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi

to file this Reference? OPR

Whether Reference of petitioner is not proceedable in its

present form due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of

necessary parties and same is liable to be dismissed? OPR

Relief.

After recording evidence and hearing arguments from all

sides, the Referee Court, vide judgment dated 07.01.2023,

accepted the Reference Application in above terms. Hence, this

appeal.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that all the

documentary evidence, adduced by respondent No.1, was

exhibited in the statement of learned counsel, therefore, the

same has no evidentiary value in view of dictum laid down by

the superior Court. He adds that even all these documents were

executed after issuance of Notification u/s 4 of the Act of 1894,

thus, the same are irrelevant as per Rule 10(1)(iii)(C) of the

Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. He argues that certain

documents were produced and only ‘marked’, therefore, such

documents had no legal value and sanctity in the eye of law.

He further submits that respondent No.1 failed to prove exact

price of the acquired land through tangible evidence and

RFA No.20881 of 2023

received the award amount without any objection, hence the

Referee Court was not justified to amplify the compensation to

such a huge magnitude. He contends that the reference

application remained pending for five years for no fault on the

part of acquiring agency, hence, there was no lawful

justification to award the compound interest, which even

otherwise is not mandatory rather is discretionary as per section

28 of the Act of 1894. In support of his contentions, he has

relied upon Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Akbar Shah

and others (2010 SCMR 1408), Manzoor Hussain (deceased)

through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749),

Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik

through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court

715), Mst. Fatima and 2 others v. Najeeb Ullah and another

(2020 CLC 780), Lahore Ring Road Authority and others v.

Mian Mumtaz Ahmad and others (2021 CLC 178) and

Muhammad Hussain and another v. Province of Punjab

through District Officer Revenue, Multan and others (2021

YLR 2310).

Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits

that the acquired land was of prime quality for cultivation of

vegetables / farming and being near to village abadi was

suitable for residential purpose as well, therefore, the value /

price of compensation should have been assessed at

Rs.25,00,000/- per Acre. He adds that appellant has evasively

denied the stance of respondent No.1 instead of rebutting the

same through any direct evidence, which amounts to admission

on the part of appellant. He adds that the price assessed by the

Land Acquisition Collector was neither proper nor adequate as

relevant factors, inter-alia, market value at the relevant time

coupled with its potential value, time consumed in finalization

of acquisition proceedings / payment of compensation and trend

of increasing prices of lands located adjacent to the lands of

RFA No.20881 of 2023

respondent No.1 have not been taken into consideration at the

time of announcement of award. In the end, he prays that

compensation fixed by the Referee Court be maintained. He has

placed reliance on Wasab Khan and another v. Mst. Bagh Bhari

and 5 others (2017 MLD 1552), Muhammad Munawar v.

Abdul Razaq and 6 others (2018 CLC 1227), Usman Khan v.

Mst. Shehla Gul and 2 others (2020 CLC 910), Muhammad

Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others (2001 SCMR 1700), Malik

Tariq Mahmood and others v. Province of Punjab and others

(2023 SCMR 102), Federal Government of Pakistan through

Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and others v. Mst. Zakia

Begum and others (PLD 2023 Supreme Court 277), National

Highway Authority v. Rai Ahmad Nawaz Khan and others

(2023 SCMR 700) and Nawabzada Abdul Qadir han and

others v. Land Acquisition Collector Mardan and others (2023

SCMR 950).

Arguments heard. Available record perused.

Undeniably, land of respondent No.1 was acquired and

he was held entitled to get compensation of the same by the

Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, issues No.4, 5, 6 & 7

were rightly decided against appellant. Even, these issues have

not been seriously pressed before this Court.

The major controversy revolves around issues No.1 to 3,

gist whereof is whether value determined by the Referee Court

was accurate or that fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector

was fair and just?

Respondent No.1 himself appeared as AW-1 and

produced Safdar Ali as AW-2. Documentary evidence contains

documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-17 and Mark-A to Mark-H.

Whereas, Syed Mohsin Raza Naqvi, Assistant Director Land

appeared in the witness box as RW-1 & Safwan ul Haq,

Tehsildar Kamoke as RW-2 and mutations of Mouza Hayati

RFA No.20881 of 2023

bearing Nos.613, 615, 617 & 618 were tendered as Ex.R-1 to

Ex.R-4, respectively.

Learned counsel for appellant has raised serious

objection qua admissibility of documentary evidence tendered

by respondent No.1, being exhibited in the statement of learned

counsel, however he frankly admitted the genuineness and

veracity of Ex.A-4, which is minutes of meeting of District

Price Assessment Committee (DPAC), held on 03.08.2016.

This document shows that schedule rate of off-road land of

Mouza Hayati was assessed as Rs.10,50,000/- and market value

as Rs.15,00,000/- per Acre, by the Assistant Commissioner

Kamoke, however column average sale price per Acre is blank.

When confronted with the legal position that the

documentary evidence was exhibited in the statement of

counsel and the same has no evidentiary value, learned counsel

for respondent No.1 submits that he would be satisfied if

compensation is fixed as per market value of acquired land

given in Ex.A-4 i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- per Acre.

On being faced with the above, learned counsel for

appellant admits that the aforesaid market value of the acquired

land was fixed by the Assistant Commissioner concerned but

the DPAC reduced it to Rs.10,50,000/- per Acre. He was asked

to show the reasons for reducing the compensation of the

acquired land and further confronted with the facts; that the

AWs claimed market value of the acquired land from

Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- per Acre in their depositions

and during cross-examination their stance remained the same;

that the RWs, who are neither members of DPAC nor persons

who assessed the value, could not substantiate that the LAC

fixed the compensation by keeping in view the market value

and potential value of the acquired land; and that the market

value of off-road lands in adjacent villages i.e. Pul Shah Dola (a

nearest village) has been assessed as Rs.17,00,000/- per Acre,

RFA No.20881 of 2023

however the same was not considered while fixing the

compensation of the acquired land. In response, learned counsel

could not advance any satisfactory reply.

10. The Referee Court has taken into consideration the

market value, potentiality and value of the adjacent lands on the

basis of documentary evidence tendered by respondent No.1,

which clearly shows value / price of adjacent lands on higher

side. However, the Apex Court of the country has laid down in

a number of judgments that documentary evidence cannot be

exhibited in the statement of counsel including the cases

reported as Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v.

Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749), Mst. Akhtar

Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal

heirs and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) and Mst.

Rasoolan Bibi v. Province of Punjab and others (2023 CLC

1171). The verdict given by the Supreme Court is binding on

all Courts of the country within the contemplation of Article

189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

1973.

11. In this view of the matter, compensation of the acquired

land is being fixed by adopting the market value mentioned in

Ex.A-4, which document although brought on record in the

statement of learned counsel for respondent No.1 but learned

counsel for appellant has admitted it to be correct and has

neither raised serious objection for determination of

compensation in line thereof nor could show that the said

determination was not in conformity with the market price

through any irrefutable documentary proof. In the given

circumstances, this Court finds no exception to it especially

when learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also agreed to it

to end the litigation.

12. Needless to say that the concept that documents cannot

be admitted into evidence solely through the statement of

RFA No.20881 of 2023

counsel during evidence is rooted in the fundamental right to

cross-examination, which is an essential aspect of the

adversarial legal system. The right to cross-examination allows

the opposing party to challenge the veracity, authenticity, and

relevance of the evidence presented, including documents. If

documents were to be admitted solely on the statements of

counsel, it would indeed compromise the right of the other

party to cross-examine, which is not warranted by law.

Therefore, the trial Courts must ensure that all documentary

evidence is subject to the scrutiny of cross-examination to

uphold the principles of fairness and due process. Documents

exhibited solely through the statements of counsel without the

opportunity for cross-examination would not meet the legal

standards for admissibility of evidence. This ensures the

integrity of the judicial process and the rights of the parties

involved. The superior Courts of the country have also enriched

the law through their judgments, setting precedents for the

proper admission of documents and evaluation. The Courts

must ensure so far as it is possible that these legal standards are

met to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and uphold

the rights of the parties involved.

13. Before parting with this judgment, I am constrained to

observe that in this case, respondent No.1 got exhibited as

many as seventeen (17) documents during statement of his

learned counsel, and the Referee Court as well as learned

counsel for the parties in total oblivion of the legal position

developed so far allowed the documents to be exhibited,

however such exercise is not permissible under well-established

principles of law enunciated by the superior Courts in a number

of judgments, some of them have also been cited supra. In this

way, the best evidence being helpful to resolve the controversy

is lost which seriously affects the precious rights of the parties.

Therefore, this Court directs that copy of this judgment be

RFA No.20881 of 2023

circulated to all the Courts in District Judiciary Punjab as well

as Presidents of Bar Associations at Tehsil and District levels

throughout Punjab for strict adherence to ensure substantial

justice and to save the parties from substantial loss.

14. In view of the above, instant appeal is partly allowed in

the manner that compensation of acquired land of respondent

No.1 is hereby fixed as Rs.15,00,000/- per Acre along with

15% compulsory acquisition charges and compound interest @

8% from the date of possession of the acquired land to the date

of payment of enhanced amount of compensation.

(Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi)

Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

Judge

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.