' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---The appellant has filed the instant regular first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7-11-2013 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge/Referee Court, Batkhela at Malakand, whereby cross objection/reference filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. A perusal of record reveals that the land under reference was acquired for the construction of Baizay Irrigation Project through Award No. 12 dated 5-3-2012. The owners being aggrieved from the said Award filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Referee Court. The Irrigation Department through Secretary Irrigation/appellants also filed cross objection under Section 22-A read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was clubbed with the objection petition/Reference filed by the owners/ objectors. Later on the reference was withdrawn by the owners/objectors on 12-9-2013. The learned Referee Judge vide the impugned order dated 7-11-2013 dismissed the cross objection filed by the appellants mainly on the ground that the main reference/objection petition filed by the owners/objectors for enhancement of compensation under Sections 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Award No. 12 issued on 5-3-2012 has since been withdrawn, therefore, cross objection filed by the Government has become infructuous and, as such was dismissed.
4. The cross objection filed by the Project Director Baizay Irrigation Project, Mardan through private counsel Safdar Ali Khan, Advocate, Mardan against the Land Acquisition Collector, the Secretary Irrigation was not arrayed in the cross objection. The petition filed under Section 22-A read with Sections 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act, against the Award mainly on the ground that the amount assessed in the Award was excessive and sought for the reduction of amount. The cross objection was dismissed by the Referee Court on the ground that the main reference/objection petition was no more in existence and since withdrawn by the objectors/owners, therefore, the cross objection in the absence of main petition/reference cannot proceed. Apart from this, the Project Director has no authority to filed an objection petition by its own without consent of the Government, as Secretary to Irrigation Department has not raised the objection but in the instant regular first appeal Secretary Irrigation through Project Director has been mentioned, which is not in line with law, as the main cross-objection was filed by the Project Director without consent of the Government or adding Secretary Irrigation as objector to the objection petition.
5. So far is the maintainability of the cross objection is concerned, the Irrigation Department is the authority for whose benefit the land has been acquired has no authority and "locus standi" either to file reference against the award of compensation or to carry with the cross objection in the absence of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, made by the land owners, government being beneficiary of the land acquired had no right to challenge the compensation given to the deprived owners of land.
6. A look of the Section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reveals that the Department, local authority or company for which land has been acquired, may file an objection petition to the objection made by any person interested and the compensation amount can be reduced awarded by the Collector, if deemed fit by the Referee Court, but in case of the withdrawal of main petition no proceedings can be conducted as per spirit of the referred section and, as such the impugned order has been passed by the learned Referee Judge with conscious and application of independent mind, the appellants could not make out a case for interference of this Court.
' For the aforementioned reason, the instant appeal being bereft of c merits is hereby dismissed.