' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and decree of the Peshawar High Court dated 22-12-1982 passed in R. F. A. No, 78 of 1977.
2. The entire estate (land in question) in the present petition was acquired by the Government for the construction of Tarbela Dam at Public expense under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After completion of the formalities including the publication of the required Notification and issuance of notices, objections were invited and ultimately the Collector, Acquisition, fixed the amount of compensation of the acquired property vide award No, 21 dated 30-12-1972. Petitioner alongwith others, filed an objection petition under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act asking for a reference to Civil Court for the determination of the amount of their acquired land and fruit bearing trees.
The. Land Acquisition Collector contested the objection petition and the learned Court of Reference i. e., the Additional District Judge, after hearing the parties, set aside the award classification and held that the suit Khasra numbers which were included in the Aks Shajra Exh. OW. 2/1, copy of Chak Bandi Exh. OW. 2/1 and extract of cultivation Exh. OW. 2/2, Exh. OW. 2/3 and Exh. OW. 2/RA were actually either irrigated from the tube-well or they had the potentialities for irrigation through the same tube-well and as such the objectors were entitled to get their classifications changed as Chahi and Bagh type lands.
3. Learned counsel's contention is that the learned Judge while accepting the entire land as Chahi and Bagh type has not incorporated all the Khasra numbers given in the above-mentioned documents Exh. OW. 2/1 to Exh.OW.2/4 and, hence the decree was incorrectly drawn which required amendment, and therefore, the learned High Court Judges fell into error by not making an order to this effect. In the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the Khasra numbers, old and the new classifications have been given whereas in the concluding paragraph 18 it has been held "The Collecter has wrongly classified the suit Khasra numbers and the objectors are entitled to the following change of classification in suit Khasra numbers :
(a) Khasra No, 341 Bagh Mewadar as a. Whole,
(b) Khasra No, 240 Bagh Mewadar as a whole.
(c) Khasra No, 643 Bagh Mewadar as a whole.
(d) Khasra Nos. 659 and 660 Bagh Mewadar and Ghair Mumkin Makal, partially, as a whole.
(e) Khasra No, 684 Bagh Mewadar as a whole. ( f) Khasra No, 242 Bagh Mewadar as a whole.
(g)Khasra No, 646 Bagh Mewadar as a whole.
(h) Khasra. No, 648 Bagh Mewadar as a whole.
(i) Khasra No, 649 Bagh Mewadar as a whole Bagh 3 Marlas remaining 7 Kanals 19 Marlas.
( j) Khasra No, 661 Bagh 9 Kanals 5 Marlas and remaining 9 Kanals Babir Di Abi.
(1) Khasra No, 657 Bagh 2 Kanals and Bahir Di Abi 2 Kanals and 2 Marlas.
(m) Khasra No, 662 Bagh 2 Kanals and 51 Marlas Tube-well as Abadi.
(n) Khasra No, 682 Bagh Mewadar 2 Kanals Ghair Mumkin 15 Marlas.
(o) Khasra No, 683 Bagh 2} Kanals Ghair Mumkin Soka fest of the area.
(p) Khasra No, 687 Bagh 2 Kanals and 19 Marlas.
(q) Khasra No, 686 Bagh Mewadar as a whole.
(ii) The Collector has also under-valued the suit lands and as such the objectors are entitled to get compensation for Bagh and Chabi as well as Abadi Rs, 1,800 per Kanal Chari Abi and Bare Abi Rs, 617.40 par Kanal, Bahir Di Abi Rs, 818.60 per Kanal, Carera and Baranger Abi Rs, 400 per Kanal, Banjar, Qadim and Ghair Mumkin Rs, 94.80 per Kanal......... "
' Thus, there remains no ambiguity in the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Looking from another angle the petitioner could have applied for the correction of any clerical, or arithmetical mistake in the judgment and decree or order, or error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission which could, at any time, be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on application of any of the parties under section 152, C. P. C. The learned High Court Judges have also dealt with the point raised, after referring to the contention of the learned counsel, vide paragraph 10 of the impugned order : "With regard to the first objection, we are not inclined to accept the same for the reason that the documents referred to in para. 13 of the judgment are general in nature, and was to the effect that the learned Collector was wrong in holding that the land is of Maira type. The learned Collector on the evidence of OW. 5 (produced by the objectors themselves) who produced Khasra Girdawari for Rabi 1963 to Rabi 1968 of the relevant period the change in classification is worked out as is referred to in para. 8 of the judgment. This is further clarified by the learred Judge in para. 18 of his judgment ...".
' Thus, in the light of above discussion we do not find any merit in this petition which, is accordingly, dismissed.