' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---This judgment shall dispose of R.F.A. No,328-2001 and R.F.A.
No,396 of 2001 as both these appeals arise out of the same order.
2. These appeals are directed against the order, dated 6-1-2001, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, whereby, references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, brought by appellants, were dismissed.
3. Relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are that appellants filed References under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and stated that they were owners in possession of land measuring 108 Kanals, 6 marlas, bearing Khewat No,243 and land measuring 197 kanals, 11 marlas, bearing Khewat Nos. 232 and 243, situated in village Wanianwala, Tehsil and District Gujranwala and that Land Acquisition Collector acquired land measuring 269 kanals, 15 marlas for Adaptive Research Farm and award was accordingly made on 18-1-1994. The appellants averred that they were awarded compensation Rs,1079.16 per marla but the same is less than market value. The Collector has not fixed the price according to the value of the land situated in the same locality.
Also that Collector did not consider relevant sale deeds or mutations before the assessment of price of land in question. The appellants prayed for enhancement of compensation. They had filed two independent references. Learned trial Court consolidated the references and on the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues--- "(1) Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing this petition by their act and conduct? OPR
(2) Whether the petition has been filed with mala fide intentions? OPR
(3) Whether the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR
(4) Whether compensation was incorrectly and inadequately assessed, if so, what is the correct rate of compensation? OPA
(5) Relief."
' The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the reference vide order, dated 6-1-2001. Hence these appeals.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties an4 perused the record carefully.
5. As mentioned above, the appellants were owners in possession of the disputed land and the same was acquired for Adaptive Research Farm, Gujranwala. According to the award, dated 18-1- 1994, compensation of the disputed land has been fixed at. Rs,1079.16 per marla. The case of the appellants is that value fixed by the Acquisition Collector is less than the market value. However case of respondents is that compensation given to appellants is reasonable and that they had offered to transfer disputed property at the rate fixed by Collector. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that earlier Collector/A.C. Had fixed the price of the disputed property as Rs,2387.97 per marla. The appellants have placed on record copy of his report as Exh.A2. The perusal of Exh.A-2 shows that A.C. Had evaluated the price of the disputed land at. Rs,2387.97 per marla and forwarded it to competent authority/Collector, District Gujranwala but there is nothing on record to show that the same had been approved by the competent authority. As such, Exh.A2 has no value.
6. The appellants examined Mian Saeed Aktar, as A.W.1. He is special attorney of the appellants. He stated that award was prepared on 28-12-1993 and value of the land was fixed as Rs,2387.97 per marla. He claimed Rs, 32 lacs per acre as price of the disputed land. During cross-examination, he denied that Exh.A2 was a simple proposal and it was not an award. Sardar Zahoor Ahmad, appellant, appeared as A.W.2 and stated that value of the disputed land, fixed by the Collector, is less and Rs,2387.93 per marla is correct price. The witnesses stated that they are entitled to get Rs,5600 per marla. During cross-examination, he stated that disputed property was acquired by the Government. He denied that Research Farm, Gujranwala had published proclamation in Daily "Tijarat" dated 10-3-1992. The appellant admitted that on 6-3-1993, they had given in writing to the Department and offered to transfer their property directly or to acquire the same at the rate of Rs,2 lacs per acre and the same bear his signature as well as signatures of Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Anwar, witnesses. So, it is clear that appellant had himself offered to transfer the disputed property at the rate of Rs,2 lacs per acre. As such, compensation given to the appellants is reasonable and there is no justification to enhance the same. Even otherwise, the appellants have failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of their case. So their claim is baseless.
The record shows that the appellants have participated in the proceedings before passing of award. As such, learned trial Court has rightly decided issues Nos. 1 and 4 and findings of learned trial Court on these issues are accordingly affirmed. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugnedorders, therefore, there is no justification to warrant interference by this Court.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that these appeals have A no force and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.