' SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---For the purpose of construction of motor way from Lahore to Islamabad some land including buildings and structures situated in Mauza Salam, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, was acquired. Award No,34, dated 29-9-1997, was announced by the Collector wherein the compensation for the built-up property of Mahmood Sultan son of Ghullah (two pucca rooms, hand pump, electricity motor etc.) was assessed at Rs,26,954.26 and for the property of Ghullah son of Sardara (Pucca Bara, Pucca Verandha, 7 Pucca Rooms, Pucca Verandha, Hand Pump Tandori, Katcha Wheat Storage 3 Nos., Pucca Walls, Concrete Shed, Earth filling Newly- Constructed and better condition etc.) was assessed at Rs,3,33,936.31. Since both of them were dissatisfied with such fixation of compensation for their property they filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant/respondent participated in the proceedings for some time and issues were also framed on 6-1-1999 in their presence. The respondents/property owners produced their evidence on 23-6-2000, whereafter dozens of opportunities were given to the appellants for producing evidence but they failed and eventually on 2-10-2004, they were proceeded against ex parte as on that date neither any of them appeared nor produced evidence before the Court. Vide order, dated 21-1-2005, the learned Reference Court decided the reference by recording finding on Issue No,1 in favor of the respondents/property owners. This is regular first appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against same.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellants could have been given one more opportunity so that they could produce evidence in the matter and that their absence on the said date was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further contended that the order of the Reference Court is based on no evidence and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents has endeavored to support the order passed by the Reference Court and points out that the appellants had failed to produce evidence on large many dates and ultimately absented from the Court for which no indulgence can be shown to them and that evidence led by the respondents has remained unrebutted.
3. The respective contentions have been considered in the light of the material on the record. There is no doubt that after conclusion of evidence of the respondents/property owners on 23-6-2000 several opportunities were given to the appellants for production of evidence and the matter was adjourned by the learned Reference Court on number of dates for that purpose. Despite that the appellants failed to produceevidence. Their conduct does not deserve any further indulgence particularly, when that on 2-10-2004, even no one attended the Court. The case was thereafter adjourned on three occasions but the appellants neither appeared nor took any steps for recalling of order, dated 2-10-2004. We are, therefore, not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as the findings of the Court qua Issue No, 1 are concerned it may be observed that the two respondents had claimed compensation for their properties Rs,4 Lac and Rs,25 Lac, respectively. Both of them appeared before the Court. Mehmood Sultan A.W.1 and Ghullah A.W.2 though were cross-examined by the appellants yet their testimony as to the nature and value of the property remained unshaken. Since no evidence to the contrary was produced by the appellants to contradict their stance the Court was left with no option but to accept and believe their statements made on oath as to they value of the acquired property. No justification has been made out for interfering with such findings recorded by the Reference Court except the oral assertion. We are, therefore, not persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the Reference Court.
' As a result of above, the appeal being without merit is dismissed but without any order as to costs.