Find a Lawyer

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, WAPDA SCARP versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

Sections 4, 11, 18, 23, 28 and 54 Law Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 61 Land Acquisition Determination of Compensation Amount Respondents Referred to the Referee Court, Acquired Land Owner, Disappointed Appealed to the referee court for reference to the compensation dispute, which was accepted and the matter remanded to the referee court, after examining and appreciating the evidence of both parties, the defendant was compensated. ? At a rate of Rs 2,000 / 3 per owner, Rs 20,000 per acre, while the compensation was rejected by the collector, such assessment was made by the referee court, based on the opinion of the witness who made the cross examination. I was of the opinion that the market value of the land could be Rs., 000 per marl, it was merely an opinion, which was not based on any documentary evidence such as the testimony of a witness, such as word of mouth. Could not be accepted, especially when this was the case when the value of the land had to be proven through documentary evidence. In the face and presence of talismanic evidence. According to Article Q61 Qun, the evidence cannot be obtained from the evidence of the High Court opinion, 1984 1984, 1984, unless it is proved on the basis of proven evidence or reasons and has no effect on admission or statement. Can be done Such opinion of the witness cannot be considered as standard for determining the amount of compensation for review or determination of land compensation, but all documentary evidence that was relevant, acceptable and for a fixed period of time is preferred. Should be compensated for the land acquired and its status top civil advocates from Jamshoro lawyer