2024 C L C 1246
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD through Project Director Zafar Mehmood----Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD AFZAL BHATTI and another----Respondents
R.F.A. No.20881 of 2023, heard on 3rd June, 2024.
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Arts. 72 & 133---Documentary evidence---Exhibited through statement of counsel----Legality---Right of cross-examination, non-availability of---Effect---Concept that documents cannot be admitted into evidence solely through statement of counsel during evidence is rooted in fundamental right to cross-examination, which is an essential aspect of adversarial legal system---Right to cross-examination allows opposing party to challenge veracity, authenticity and relevance of evidence presented, including documents---Admitting documents solely on the statements of counsel, compromises right of other party to cross-examine, which is not warranted by law---Trial Courts must ensure that all documentary evidence is subject to scrutiny of cross-examination to uphold principles of fairness and due process---Documents exhibited solely through statements of counsel without opportunity for cross-examination do not meet legal standards for admissibility of evidence---This ensures the integrity of judicial process and the rights of parties involved.
Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan PLD 2020 SC 749; Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others PLD 2021 SC 715 and Mst. Rasoolan Bibi v. Province of Punjab and others 2023 CLC 1171 rel.
(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
----Ss. 4 & 18---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 72 & 133---Acquisition of land---Compensation---Determining factors---Documents not put to cross-examination---Appellant was land acquiring authority and aggrieved of enhancing of compensation regarding acquired land owned by respondent / landowner---Plea raised by appellant / authority was that all documents relied upon by Referee Court were exhibited during statement of counsel for respondent / landowner---Validity---Respondent / landowner got exhibited as many as seventeen (17) documents during statement of his counsel---Referee Court as well as both the parties in total oblivion of legal position had allowed those documents to be exhibited---Such exercise was not permissible under well-established principles of law---Best evidence helpful to resolve the controversy was lost which had seriously affected precious rights of parties---High Court directed for strict adherence of such principle to ensure substantial justice and to save parties from substantial loss---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction reduced the compensation from Rs.2,000,000/- per Acre to Rs.1,500,000/- along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges and compound interest at the rate of 8% from the date of possession of acquired land to date of payment of enhanced amount of compensation---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Akbar Shah and others 2010 SCMR 1408; 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; Muhammad Hussain and another v. Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Multan and others 2021 YLR 2310; 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 SC 277; National Highway Authority v. Rai Ahmad Nawaz Khan and others 2023 SCMR 700 and Nawabzada Abdul Qadir Khan and others v. Land Acquisition Collector Mardan and others 2023 SCMR 950 ref.
Muhammad Saim Chaudhary, Dewan Zakir Hussain and Saima Safdar Chaudhary for Appellant.
Muhammad Zain Qazi, Assistant Attorney General on Court's call.
Najaf Muzammal Khan for Respondent.
Muhammad Saad Bin Ghazi, Assistant Advocate General on Court's call.
No comments:
Post a Comment