This appeal against the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, dated th:; 12th .July, 1976, dismissing the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition .Act, 1894, initiated at the instance of the appellant arises out of the following circumstances. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1891, indicating the Government's intention to acquire 43 kanals 6 marlas of land situate in the area of village Muraffarpur, tehsil and district Siaikot, for the construction of staff colony for Government Polytechnic Institute, Sialkot, was. Published in the official Gazette on the 10th November. 19'/2. A parcel of 9 marlas of the land in disputc, which formed part of the land which was to be acquired by the Government, was owned by one Sain, son of Roda. He transferred it by sale to the appellant, Muhammad Rafiq, for a' consideration of Rs.6,300.00 by means of the deed, Exh. P.4, which was executed and registered on the 24th March, 1973. The appellant alleges that he constructed three shops over 9 marlas of land after its purchase from Sain. The award given by the Land Acquisition Collector on the 28th March, 1974, assessed value of the land at the rate of Rs.8,821.00 per kanal. Feeling aggrieved with the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector and by the absence of any compensation for the shops constructed by him the appellant initiated reference under section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for determination of correct amount of compensation. The respondent Government opposed the reference and questioned the locus stands of the appellant to come to the Court because he had purchased the land after issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act without the sanction of the Collector as required by section 24 of the Act.
2. Admittedly the appellant purchased the land after the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act without sanction of the Collector. Therefore, he was not eligible to claim compensation in respect of the land or,of A any improvement made by him. He had no locus standi to ask for the reference. If the law permits he may recover from Sain son of Roda amount of price paid to him.
This appeal is without force and is dismissed with costs.