1. The land which is the subject-matter of this appeal was acquired for WAPDA by the Land Acquisition Collector, Chashma Right Bank Canal Project, WAPDA, Dera Ismail Khan (respondent No,5) vide: his Award No,12 dated 13-3-990 after observing all the legal formalities as required under the law.
2. 2.The owners of the land i,e,, respondents Nos.1 to 4 were not satisfied with the said Award and accordingly submitted an Objection petition before the Land Acquisition Collector, requesting therein that the matter be referred to the District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. 3.The Land Acquisition Judge, after recording the evidence which the parties wished to produce and after hearing the learned counsel for parties, accepted the objection petition and enhanced the compensation from Rs,3235.12 per Kanal to Rs,5,000 per Kanal in respect of ' Nalchahi' kind of land only.
4. The appellant has challenged the legality/validity of the said judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge (Mr. Azar Khan Naseem) by filing this appeal.
4. 5.Learned counsel for the parties present and heard. I have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. 6.It must be stated at the very outset that the learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to pin-point any illegality or material irregularity which might have been committed by the Land Acquisition Judge in enhancing the price of land from Rs,3235.12 per Kanal to Rs,5,000 per Kanal. Needless to mention that according to the "Ausat Yak Sala" (Exh. P.W. 1/4) the market value of the land in question comes to Rs,5,670.30 per Kanal. The Land Acquisition Judge has discussed the evidence produced by the parties in detail and has given valid reasons for arriving at a correct conclusion. The order of the Land Acquisition Judge is neither perverse nor arbitrary. It is neither contrary to any law nor the trial Judge has failed to determine any material error in arriving at the conclusion. On the other hand, his order is a speaking order.
6. 7.This appeal, therefore, has no substance and is accordingly dismissed with cost.