1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, C. J.-Vide Award No, 32 dated 17-11-1971 the entire estate of village Khabbal was acquired for the public purpose, namely, Tarbela Dam Project. The property of the appellant was also included in the said estate. He was not satisfied with compensation awarded to him by the Collector, therefore, he filed objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) before the Additional District Judge, Haripur, who vide his order, dated 5-11-1977 dismissed the same on the ground that the appellant had received the compensation amount awarded to him by the Collector without protest during the pendency of the objection petition. Hence this regular first appeal.
2. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents called our attention to a judgment of this Court reported in PLD 1982 Pesh. 69 wherein it was held that if the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is received without protest, an objector cannot claim enhanced compensation in any further proceedings. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand called our attention to a judgment, dated 21-12-1983 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No 139 of 1980 in which the Hon'ble Judges held that if an objector had filed objection petition under section 18 of the Act before he had received the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Collector, his objection petition would mean a protest against the compensation awarded to him by the Collector and in that event he can be said to have not willingly accepted the award. We find that the present case is similar case to the above Civil Appeal No, 139 of 1980 before the Supreme Court. The objector had received the amount after he had filed objection petition under section 18 of the Act, therefore, the ratio of the authority of the Supreme Court that if an objector had after the award moved an application or reference and thereafter he had received the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Collector he can be said to have not consented to the award or for that matter he received the amount under protest, is to be followed in the present case and the above authority reported in PLD 1982 Pesh. 69 will have no legal value.
3. ' It may be pointed out that in the above case PLD 1982 Pesh. 69 1 was a member of the Bench. We were referred to a judgment from the Indian Turisdiction reported in AIR 1964 Cal. 283, the ratio of which is that an objector can raise protest against the compensation amount at the time of receiving the amount and his protest must be recorded in the receipt. Relying upon this authority we held that as the appellants in the cited case had not raised any protest against the amount of compensation at the time of receiving the same, they were not entitled to seek enhancement of compensation after they had already received the amount without protest. We were not cited any law or authority to show that the above authority of the Calcutta High Court had ever been overruled. We were however, presently referred to an authority from the Indian Jurisdiction AIR 1971 And. Pra. 117 in which it has been held, just as has been held by the Supreme Court in the above authority, that if an objector has filed a petition for reference, it is an indication positive of his protest and thereafter even if he has received the amount of compensation, no objection can be raised against him that be has received the amount of compensation without protest.
4. Unfortunately this authority was not cited before the Court in the above case reported in PLD 1982 Pesh.
69. We have also been referred to an authority reported in PLD 1984 Lah. 261 in which it is held that if an objector applies for reference under section 18 of the Act it would tantamount to his protest and no objection can be taken against him that he has received the compensation amount without protest. Now the legal position on the point, particularly in view of the Supreme Court judgment cited above, is clear that once an objector applies for reference under section 18 of the Act against the award of the Collector, no ground can be raised against him that he had received the compensation amount without protest and the reference on his application was not competent.
5. ' We, therefore, disapprove the above authority of this Court reported in PLD 1982 Pesh. 69 and following the authority of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No, 139 of 1980 hold that in the present case the appellant had received the compensation amount against his consent or for that matter under protest and so his claim is to be decided on merit.
6. ' Now we proceed to examine the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation in the light of the evidence on record. A reference to the impugned judgment will show that the learned Additional District Judge had relied upon one year's average preceding the date of Notification under section 4 of the Act. In this behalf he referred to three averages Exh. C. W. 1/1 to Exh. C. W. 1/3.
7. These averages show the prices of the various types of land sold in the same vicinity. According to these averages the prices of the three kinds of land are as below:- {{TABLE}} Bari Rs, 3,064.00 per Kanal.
8. Maira Rs, 1,984.48 -do- Banjar Rs, 401.20 -do- {{TABLE}} ' Apart from the above types of land the appellant did not produce any evidence in support of his claim with respect to other types of land and the learned Additional District Judge rejected the claim of the appellant in this behalf. The learned counsel for the respondents was unable to advance any satisfactory argument that the above prices for Bari, Maira and Banjar kinds of land on the basis of one year's average were not correct. As a matter of fact, he did not produce any documentary proof in rebuttal of the same. We find that the said prices are reasonable in a case of this nature especially when we take note of the fact that in similar cases in which the lands were acquired in the same vicinity, this Court enhanced the compensation round about the above prices. The learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert this position. We, therefore, enhance the compensation of Bari, Maira and Banjar kinds of land as fixed by the learned Additional Judge and with regard to the other types of land, as the appellant did not produce any evidence in this behalf, we reject his claim. This appeal is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. n