' IBNE ALI, J.--This first appeal under the Land Acquisition Act has arisen in the following circumstances:- ' Some land in -the area of village Langra Tehsil and District Abbottabad was acquired for public purposes by the. Government to construct a bridge called Ayub Bridge. A notification under section 4 of the Act was accordingly issued on 20-7-1977. The respondent herein owned land measuring 6 kanals and 10 marlas out of which 10 marlas was acquired. His case is that by the acquisition of 10 marlas, the remaining 6 kanals was demaged not fit for cultivation. He, therefore, filed objection petition under section 23 of the Act claiming Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) as damages/compensation alongwith Compulsory Acquisition charges and 8% compound interest.
The objection petition was referred to the Acquisition Judge who after recording evidence of the parties allowed compensation of Rs,50,000 to the respondent and his prayer with regard to compulsory acquisition charges and interest was rejected, vide his order dated 2-2-1986. By this judgment the Government feels aggrieved, therefore, they have filed the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the objection petition was to be filed A under section 18 of the Act and as the respondent filed it unde ecticri 23 thereof, his submission, therefore, is that the objection petition was incompetent and the Acquisition Judge would have no jurisdiction to entertain it. We have not been able to appreciate this contention in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is conceded that the objection petition has arisen out of the same acquisition proceedings or for that matter, cause of action accrued to the respondent out of the same proceedings, therefore, he was to have sought his remedy under the law governing the same proceedings. Now even though the respondent filed objection petition under section 23 of the Act instead of under section 18 thereof, it should not be the ground to deprive him of the remedy available to him under the relevant law viz. The Land Acquisition Act. The objection petition filed by him under section 23 of the Act was just a misdescription and it should not render it incompetent. It may be observed that in a given case the Court, while adjudicating upon the matter, will not go into technicalities of trivial nature if the law under which remedy has been sought is applicable to the case. We, therefore, hold that as section 23 of the Act under which the respondent filed the objection petition was a misdescription and as otherwise his case was covered by the same Act, the objection petition is to be treated under section i8 of the Act.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the land of respondent was not affected by the acquisition proceedings in the present case, therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation. This contention is not wholly correct. The learned Acquisition Judge recorded evidence of the parties in this behalf. He appointed Commissioner to visit the spot and assess the damage caused to the land of the respondent. The learned Commissioner assessed the damage to the tune of Rs,50,000. His report is based on evidence. He was cross-examined, but nothing was brought out from him that the land of the respondent remained intact without any damage whatever. We have to observe that by alienating some area from the land of the respondent for the construction of the bridge, the land left to the respondent will have suffered damage. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that due to the construction of the bridge, the land of the respondent became more valuable is not supported by any evidence on record. In this view the mere assertion of the learned counsel in this behalf should not avail to him. As the respondent brought evidence on record and his evidence is supported by the Commissioner who reported that his land was damaged, we consider that he is entitled to compensation. The Commissioner, as indicated above, has assessed damages to a tune of Rs,50,000. He has, however, failed to substantiate this assessm ent by any reliable data. In our opinion, the amount of Rs,50,000 assessed by the Commissioner and awarded by the learned Acquisition Judge requires decrease.
The damage caused to the land of the respondent will not be perpetual. The land can be improved by levelling it and constructing embankment to save it from seepage which, we think will not be more than Rs,30,000. Thus in order to compensate the respondent equity demands that he should be allowed Rs,30,000.
5. As a result, we partially allow this appeal and while modifying the impugned judgment of the Acquisition Judge, we grant the sum of Rs,30,000 as compensation to the respondent, with no order as to costs.