1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This direct appeal in a land compensation case is to challenge the acceptance, partly, by the High Court of the respondents/WAPDA's appeal. The facts as noted in the impugned judgment are as follows: The respondents during the process of the construction of Khanpur Dam allegedly left very little space on the left side of River Haro for the flow of water and also changed its direction due to the deposit of the excavated material from the Dam and spillway into the River. As a result whereof, the land owned by the appellants in adjoining villages Shohal and Mohra Gutta comprised in the Khasra Nos. 194, 196, 198 (in village Shohal) and Khasra Nos.6/4, 7/7/1. 30, 31, 103, 153, 154, 155, 335/162, 164, 165 min,
161. Min, 169 A min, 170 and 171 (in village Mohra Gutta) which were of `Bagh' and Charri-Abi' kind and receiving water for irrigation from Haro were either eroded or turned into Barani lands. Four water mills owned by the appellants on this site also stopped functioning for want of water. The appellants after having failed to settle accounts with the WAPDA authorities with regard to the receipt of compensation for the damage done to their aforesaid properties, thereafter in the year 1980 filed a suit before the lower Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs, 11,32,000.
2. ' The respondents resisted the claim and the learned trial Judge after settling as many as 9 issues arising out of the pleadings between the parties, recorded evidence on both sides and thereafter in view of his decision on issues Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 8, relating to the cause of action, limitation, jurisdiction of the Civil Court and entitlement of the appellants to the decree claimed, allowed the suit partially and passed a decree for Rs, 4,88,448 as principle amount.
3. The High Court further reduced this amount with the reasoning that the trial Court while awarding compensation to the appellants took into consideration and looked into the market value only which is usually fixed for acquisition purpose. It did not consider' the other aspect of the case that the property though damaged is still in the ownership and possession of the appellants and can be used by them for many other purposes than agriculture. Likewise chances of reclamation of the land for agriculture and restoration of the water mills was also not ruled out. Learned counsel for the appellants, in order to prove that the land, in question has for all practical purposes been, as put by him, "destroyed altogether" and it is of no use to the appellants' side at all, in support of his plea demonstrably, declared with anguish as follows: "the land is no more land as visualised by the High Court. Even for the future the appellants are ready to surrender it to WAPDA without any additional compensation than what was awarded by the trial Court". He also stated that for the appellants it is absolutely useless, but the WAPDA might be able to put it to some use because some land very near to the suit land stands already acquired by them.
4. ' Even if the last mentioned fact stated by the learned counsel is not given much importance, the fact remains that the surrender of the land, offered from the appellants' side, is proof positive of the fact that it is of no use to them. No evidence now is necessary in this behalf. Learned Deputy AtttonryGeneral for the respondents, obviously having no answer, rather stunned, upon the demonstrative statement of the learned counsel for the appellants, could not oppose the offer with any justification. As otherwise, if the trial Court judgment is restored as it is, without accepting the offer from the appellants' side, the land would not in that eventuality go to WAPDA.
5. In the light of the foregoing discussion the offer made from the appellants' side together with the other attending circumstances, is enough to justify a conclusion that the assessment by the learned trial Judge was correct. Accordingly, while accepting this appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court the trial Court judgment impugned before the High Court is restored; with the condition, direction and order that the land in quesiton stands surrendered to the ownership of WAPDA. The appellants' side will have no right or interest therein. Necessary consequential actions shall be taken including the change of physical possession and all the entries in the record-of-rights. The compenstation or balance thereof as decreed by the trial Court shall be paid within three months to the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs.