MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--The suit filed by the respondent for possession of land through preemption was decreed by the learned trial Court. The present petitioner was allowed an amount of Rs.
6889/- on account of improvements made by him on the land in dispute. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 20.2.1985 was assailed by filing appeal which has been dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court through judgment and decree dated 3.12.1985.
2. Learned counsel for 1he petitioner argued that an amount of Rs. 6889.00 has been granted as compensation on the improvements which is based on the report of Local Commissioner, whereas the objections raised against the said report by the petitioner were not disposed of through express order. The contention is without any substance for neither in the memo of appeal before the learned lower appellate Court nor in the memo of revision petition filed before this Court, any such ground has been specifically or impliedly raised. I am not inclined to allow the petitioner to raise his argument at this stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the evidence of the petitioner produced in Court has not been given due consideration. I have gone through the evidence produced by the petitioner regarding the improvements. Ashiq Hussain D.W.1 stated that the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.22000.00/ 23000.00 on the improvement of the property. The petitioner's case was that she had raised the level of the land by filling it with earth and thereafter raised a house. D.W. 1 in cross-examination admitted that it was not he who filled the land with earth. He also admitted that did not know as to whose tractors were carrying the earth. D.W. 2 also admitted in the corss- examination that he did not know as to who was the person who filled the land with earth. The petitioner himself appeared as D.W.3 and stated that the land was filled with earth by one Nawaz who was alive but was not examined as witness. The learned trial Court was justified in placing reliance on the report of Local Commissioner who after taking into consideration the improvements made at the spot came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 6889.00 was sufficient compensation for such improvements. The findings as such suffer from no illegality and call for no interference.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the petitioner has not been granted expenses of the sale which include Rs.415.00 on account of stamp paper. I have noticed that it is manifest from the sale-deed a copy of which has been produced in evidence that a stamp paper of the value of Rs.415.00 was used in the execution of sale-deed. The said document being on the record the petitioner could not have been deprived of the said amount as expenses of the sale. However, there is no evidence on the record for other misc expenses claimed by the petitioner on account of municipal committee fee etc.
5. Mr.M. Aflab Iqbal, Advocate learned counsel for respondent has no objection if an amount of Rs.
415.00 is also allowed to the petitioner in addition to compensation of Rs. 6889.00 already allowed to her.I, therefore, modify the decree passed by the learned trial Court regarding comperfsation and instead hereby allow total compensation amounting to Rs. 7304/- (Rs. 6889 already allowed plus Rs.415).
6. Subject to the above modification regarding amount of compensation, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below do not call for any interference as the Courts below have not been shown to have committed any material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them under the law. The revision petition subject to the above modification in the compensation is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.