1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 8-3-1987, passed in Civil Appeal No.48/83, whereby the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge in favour of the respondent was affirmed.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the land in dispute, subject-matter of this petition was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for expansion of Tele- Communication System/Facilities and for construction of staff quarters, the Notification dated 31-1- 1978 in this regard Was published on 6-3-1978. Award for compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000 per Kanal plus 15% compulsory acquisition plus 8% interest was announced by the Collector, D.G. Khan on 25-2-1979. The respondent being not satisfied with this award claimed reference under section 18 of Act, which was accordingly made by the Collector to the Senior Civil Judge which was accepted and the compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs.60,000 per Kanal plus 15% for compulsory acquisition plus interest at the rate of 8%. The petitioner filed appeal against this order before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued that the rate of Rs.15,000 per Kanal was fixed with the consent of the respondent. We have gone through the objection petition under section 18 of the Acquisition Act, of the respondent and find that the land close in the vicinity of the acquired land is sold at the rate of Rs.7,000 per Marla. There are mutations of some land near acquired and taken over for the development of the Provincial Government. We find that from 26-11-1977 the sale-deed and the mutation So produced shows, that the average of sale price so calculated is more than Rs.60,000 per Kanal. It is also in the statement of Sanaullah Sub-Engineer that the Government land was auctioned from Rs.6,500 to Rs.10,500 per Marla. The prices in our view, were correctly calculated at the rate of Rs.60,000 per Kanal and the learned counsel was unable to satisfy us that the calculation of the data produced and the sale prices in the vicinity is less than Rs.60,000 per Kanal.
4. Thus under the circumstances, we find no justification for interference in the impugned judgment.
5. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.