1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against the impugned judgment of the High Court; whereby, respondents' appeal in a land acquisition award of compensation case, was allowed. The dispute relates to the compensation for two houses; namely, Nos. 418 and 423.
2. ' The Collecor had awarded nearly Rs, 8,000 for House No, 423 and more than Rs, 16,000 for House No, 418. It was increased by the learned Referee Judge to Rs, 15,000 and more than Rs, 26,000, respectively. The High Court restored the award of the Collector. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the question; whether, the report of a private Overseer could not be treated as evidence with regard to the value of the superstructure of the building, particularly in absence of any technical evidence in this behalf which could have been produced by the respondent WAPDA.
3. 'We have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. No doubt it is true that the main evidence relied upon from the appellants side consists of a report by a private Overseer engaged by the appellants. It is also true that having been privately engaged he might be considered as interested in his employer as against a Government agency, like WAPDA, who had acquired land for Tarbela Dam. But it is clear that there is nothing in law which might prevent the examination of such witness who may state as to what he saw about a building and also might offer his expert opinion with regard to age or otherwise of the house as also its generally assessed value. But at the same time it has not been denied that the value and weight attached to such evidence would depend upon circumstances of each case and the character and credibility of the witness concerned.
4. ' In this case there is an additional objection from the respondents' side to the admissibility of the report/statement of the private Overseer produced by the appellants on the ground that when he visited the spot and saw the houses, the respondent (WAPDA) was not associated in this process. It will be too wide a proposition that every person going into a house or living in a house, for making an assessm ent of its value must ask the other side to be present for purpose of making general assessm ent or even for purpose of making measurements. The situation, as is in the present case, is different from a commission appointed by the Court where the parties are supposed to be present. Accordingly, we do not find any force in this objection of the respondents either; particularly in the circumstances that the Overseer sent by the WAPDA to make the assessment of the value of the houses is not shown to have associated all the parties concerned, in that exercise.
5. Not only this the report of the said Overseer of the WAPDA has not been led as evidence nor has it been produced before us.
6. ' However, the matter would not end here. We have ourselves made the calculations of the covered area as also the value of the material used therein on the assumption that the statement and the site plan made in that behalf by the appellants' side, is correct. We also asked both the learned counsel to make similar exercise separately. As a result of this exercise done in Court by the Bench and the Bar we have reached the conclusion that even on the maximum rate of per sq. Ft. Of the construction involved in this case, the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants is fair-- rather it also seems on the higher side. That being so, we do not find any force in this appeal. The same, accordingly, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.