MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- Some land belonging to the respondent No. 1 was acquired by the Provincial Government for the appellants. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 3.11.1993. Further proceedings were conducted and an award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27.6.1995: The value of the Nira land acquired was assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per kanal. The award was not accepted by the respondent No. 1 who filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the matter was referred to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Attock. According to the said landowner the market value of his land was not less than Rs. 60,000/- per kanal. The grievance made was that the' potential value of the land has been ignored as the land is located between the two pacca roads abutting on the same.
The appellants contested the said reference while supporting the said award. Following .Issues were framed:-
1. Whether the petition is the-barred?
2. Whether the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is wrong, incorrect, and illegal, if so what is the correct valuation?
3. Relief.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned Trial Court found the application to be within the.
Under issue No. 2 the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 40,000/- per kanal with 15% compulsory acquisition charges. This was done vide judgments and decree dated 3.11.1 999.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that there were no grounds for the referee Court to rely upon the awards Exh. A. 3 and Exh. A.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents N x 1 supports the impugned award.
3. We have gone through the Trial Court records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now we find that the learned Trial Court has primarily relied upon awards Exh. A.3 and A.4 while deciding issue No. 2. We have already stated above that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the present case was published on 3-11-1993, Now Exh. A.3 is the copy of award dated 1-1- 1997. it pertains to acquisition of land in village Barotha, Tehsil and District Attock. We find that the said notification was issued in respect of the said land on 3-11-1993. Now the appellants produced Mumtaz Ali Patwari, as RW -1. in his cross-examination he has stated that he has been the land acquired in the present case. He then admitted that this land and the land acquired in Barotha whereupon the colony has been constructed are absolutely adjacent. To similar effect is the statement of Muhammad Jafar Khan the attorney of the respondent No. 1 who appeared as PW -I.
4. We thus find that the lands acquired vide the award in question as also vide the award Exh. A.3 were being adjacent and having been notified for acquisition on the same date, it cannot be said that the Learned referee Court has committed any error of law or fact while relying upon award Exh.
A.3 in the matter enhancing the compensation accordingly. No other point has been urged. The RFA is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.
5. The records of the learned Trial Court be remitted back immediately.