My this judgment shall also dispose of the connected Regular First Appeal No. 47/91 "S. Ashraf Shah etc. v. The Collector", for, both the appeals involve the same parties and questions of law as well as the facts.
2. For a public purpose of the construction of Dallas Drain, Kafoor Dheri Scheme, the Land Acquisition Collector, Peshawar acquired 287 Kanals 14 M4rlas of land in four villages, Patwar Payan, Buddha Kunder Khel, Patwar Balayand Mathra through Award No. 7 dated 5-1-1977 that included Khasras Noi. 583 and 585 situated in Mathra which have been the subject-matter of apportionment under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act between the present parties as a result of two objection petitions, one filed by Muzaffar Khan and the other by Syed Ashraf Shah. After recording evidence in both the cases, the learned Reference Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar vide its judgement dated 25-5-1991 distributed the compensation among three categories of co- sharers holding the property to be Shamilat of Kundi Miana. The present appeals are filed against such judgment by Syed Ashraf Shah.
3. From the Revenue Record on file of both the cases if stands appropriately concluded that there are three sets of the claimants having their shares in Shamilat based on respective shares in the Khewat. One set of Co---sharers was Mst. Mehr Nigara etc. the other set of co-sharers was Muzaffar Khan etc., the respondents, while the third set was that of Syed Ashraf Shah etc., the appellants. According to the Revenue Record and according to their settled shares in Khewat, the apportionment falling to the share of the three sets in the acquired property was determined and rightly so as five Marlas, six Marlas and three Marlas respectively. The above apportionment was correctly arrived at.
4.It is a case of apportionment and a Court of Reference has to determine the shares in accordance with record regardless of whether each one is before it or not. Based on this principle also, the apportionment made through the impugned order is correct.
5.Consequently the impugned judgment and decree dated 25-1-1991 is upheld and both the appeals are hereby dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.