' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.--By Award No32 drawn on 20th October, 1985, certain land including that owned by the appellant was acquired for construction of Haripur Chappar Road. Notification under section 4 had already been issued for this purpose on 1st June, 1985. The appellant was not satisfied with the award, therefore, he approached the Land Acquisition Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to refer his claim for adjudication to the Land Acquisition Judge. In this objection petition it was averred that an area of 9 kanals 7 marlas owned by the objector was acquired but it has wrongly been classified as Maira instead of Bagh Abi and its price has been assessed at low rates. It was also submitted that the price of House No,9 acquired from, the appellant has been estimated at Rs,17,466.54 as against its real value of Rs,40,000. Similarly, it was alleged that 42 fruit bearing and 135 non-fruit bearing trees belonging to the appellant were acquired but its price and kind has wrongly been estimated. It was also complained that a water- mill of the objector was damaged and rendered unserviceable because of the construction of the road but he was not compensated for this damage. The respondents in their joint written statement rebutted these allegations and instead (sic) the award factually as well as legally correct. The Reference Judge did not grant any of the reliefs prayed forin the petition and accordingly dismissed the objection petition through his order dated 4th July, 1988, which has been impugned in this appeal.
2. At the very out-set the learned counsel arguing for the appellant abandoned his objection regarding classification of the acquired land and admitted as correct the kind of land as given in the award. However, he was very ardent in putting up his claim for enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land on the basis of Mutation No,540 attested on 23rd February, 1986. This mutation cannot better the claim of the appellant, because the mutation relates to a different village and is in respect of Bari kind of land which is far superior to Maira type of land which has been acquired from the appellant. Besides the mutation, the appellant has not been able to produce any other evidence to entitle him to any increase in the compensation. The appellant was critical of the manner in which the price of the house acquired from him was assessed as according to him the functionaries of the acquiring department remained the sole arbitor in this respect and he could not prove his claim for enhancement at the trial of the reference as by the time the house stood demolished. These excuses would hardly absolve the appellant to prove his entitlement to the increase in the price of the house. It is to be noted that P.W. 2 Mohammad Yousaf appearing as attorney of the appellant had to say only this much on this count, One house bearing No,9 was also acquired but the compensation awarded by the Collector for it is very less". The only other witness P.W. 3 had stated that the property of the objector had been undervalued by the respondent-Collector. However, he has not explained as to how it has been undervalued and how it deserved the high value. The appellant was required to have given details of the compensation of the house, its structure, material used therein and such other factors to prove that his house was worth much than that fixed for it in the award. The learned Referee Judge was correct to reject the prayer of the appellant for enhancedcompensation on account of lack of evidence in support of the claim. Looking at the evidence on record the learned Acquisition Judge cannot be blamed for not conceding to the request of the appellant to give him more compensation for the trees than that awarded to him in the award. However, the demand of the appellant for compensation of the water-mill which was damaged in the construction of the road appears to be justified as the letter from Superintendent Engineer to the Commanding Officer Frontier Works Organization Ex.P.W.2/1 on record acknowledges the destruction of the water-mill on account of blasting carried out by Organization and values the damage at Rs,7,884.52. The Acquisition Judge has legally erred in refusing the compensation to the appellant on the ground that the "question of its acquisition or to include it in the impugned award subsequently would not arise". The provision of Section 23(1) fourthly caters for such a situation as this clause permits the payment of such damages which have resulted by acquisition of the other property of the claimant and which has injuriously affected his unacquired property and lawful earning arising from the damaged portion of the property. This type of claim can be put forth in execution proceedings as in determining the amount of compensation of the acquired land such loss of the business or damage of the business premises can be claimed towards the amount of compensation. The appellant is thus entitled to receive the amount of Rs,7,884.52 as damages of the water-mill which even otherwise according to the letter mentioned above is the right of the appellant to receive.
3. Consequently, this appeal is partially accepted to the extent that the appellant should be paid Rs,7,884.52 on account of the destruction of his water-mill and to this extent the judgment and decree of the Acquisition Judge are modified. The appeal regarding the other reliefs is, however, dismissed. The parties would bear their own costs of this appeal.