The land which is the subject-matter to this appeal, was acquired for Executive Engineer (Remodelling) Project Irrigation Division, D. I. Khan by the Collector, District D.I. Khan (appellant No. l) vide: his Award, dated 23-5-1991 after observing all the legal formalities as required under the law.
2. The owners of the land i.e., respondents Nos. l and 2 were not satisfied with the said Award and accordingly submitted an Objection Petition before the Land Acquisition Collector, D.I. Khan, requesting therein that the matter be referred to the District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. The Land Acquisition Judge (Mr. Azar Khan Naseem), after recording the evidence which the parties wished to produce and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, accepted the Objection petition and enhanced the compensation from Rs.20,286 per Kanal to Rs.30,000 per Kanal in respect of land situated in Mouza Kotla Saidan, D.I. Khan only.
4. The appellant has challenged the legality/validity of the said judgment of the Land Acquisition Midge by filing this appeal 5. . Learned counsel for the parties present and heard. I have also gone through the record of tire case carefully.
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.20,286 per Kanal to Rs.30,000 per Kanal. Needless lo' mention that according to "Ausat Yak Sala" (Exh.P.W.1/3), the market value of the land to question curves to Rs.38,466 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 issue. He lies also not committed any substantial error in arriving at the conclusion. On the other hand, his order is a speaking order.
7. This appeal, therefore, has no substance and is accordingly dismissed with cost.