' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J---On a reference filed by the respondent under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 qua an award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 9-2-1988, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur has vide his judgment dated 31-7-1995 revised the quantum of compensation, which judgment has been assailed through this first appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
Facts forming the background of reference are elaborately stated in the judgment, repetition of which is being avoided. Suffice it to state that the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation of Rs.16,208 for the tube-well, machinery and the structure, being dissatisfied the respondent had assailed the quantum of compensation. During the proceedings in the Reference before the Court, Muhammad Ibrahim, Sub-Divisional Officer (P.W.1) had been appointed to' assess the compensation, who submitted his report. He had calculated the amount of compensation of Rs.55,600, as against the claim of the respondent for Rs.4,63,000. The said report of the Sub- Divisional Officer has not been disputed by the appellants nor any evidence led to the contrary, rather paragraph 4 of Memo. Of appeal reads like this:-- "4. That the assessm ent of compensation is based on the report (Exh.A.2) of local commission who was appointed on the request of the respondent through his application dated 20-4-1991 wherein he requested for the appointment of the Civil Engineer. The report was self-explanatory and decisive on the subject." (Underlined for relevance.).
' It was thus that compensation assessed by the Sub-Divisional Officer at Rs.55,600 was found to be just and fair by the Court and the award was revised to that extent. Since the appellants have, as noted above, considered the said report as "self-explanatory and decisive on the subject" we fail to understand on what basis the appellants can assail the order of the Court, whereby the Court allowed the difference of assessed amount of Rs.39,392. No legitimate exception can thus be taken to that part of the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the reference filed by the respondent was time-barred is untenable in the circumstances inasmuch as there was no issue claimed before the Court below and even the memorandum of appeal before this Court is silent in this regard.
4. The contention of the appellants, however, as to the rate of interest payable to the respondent in terms of the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge remain to be considered. We notice that the learned Senior Civil Judge awarded the interest "at the bank rates prevailing from time to time", which was not warranted by law inasmuch as provisions of section 28 of the Act leave no ambiguity about the rate of interest awardable in such a case. Interest at the rate of 8% is legally permissible in terms of section 28 of the Act.
' As a result of the above the appeal is dismissed with the modification that interest will be calculable and payable at the rate of 8% in terms of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. No order as to costs.