' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Land measuring 31 Canals and 1 Marla owned by the respondents was acquired by the Provincial Government for the construction of a general bus stand. The notification under section 4, Land Acquisition Act, was published on 14-5-1971 and the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 16-8-1971. He assessed the rate of compensation at Rs,420 per Marla. The respondents were dissatisfied with the award as, according to them, the price of land ought to have been fixed at Rs,1,200 per Marla. They moved the Collector under section 18, Land Acquisition Act, to make a reference to the Civil Court. Accordingly, the Collector referred the dispute to the Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat. After recording evidence of the parties the learned Senior Civil Judge raised the rate of compensation to Rs,800 per Marla. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the award of the learned Senior Civil Judge and filed an appeal in the High Court. It was dismissed.
They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The land acquired by the petitioners falls in villages Nawan Rangpur and Nawan Fatehpur within the limits of Gujrat City. The controversy between the parties with regard to the rate of compensation raises a question of fact which has to be resolved entirely on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The learned Senior Civil Judge as well as the High Court concurrently held that the market value of the land was Rs,800 per Marla. The finding does not suffer from any infirmity.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the petitioners applied to the High Court for permission to produce some additional evidence which consisted of a number of sale-deeds, but their application in this regard was unreasonably rejected by the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not explained why the sale deeds were not produced before the Senior Civil Judge when the parties evidence was being recorded. Apart from that these sale- deeds do not help the petitioners as they do not indicate that they relate to the land situated in the immediate vicinity of the land in dispute or has the same advantages. The High Court was therefore justified in holding that these sale-deeds even if taken into consideration did not advance the case of the petitioners.
4. For the reasons stated above there is no merit in these petitions which are hereby dismissed.