JUDGMENT FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.-- This regular appeal by the Province of the Punjab and others calls in question the validity of the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1992 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali as a Land Acquisition Judge.
2. The land of the respondent was acquired for, a public purpose of WAPDA. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award dated 2.9.1981. Out of 60 land-owners, only 15 land-owners including the respondent moved applications under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Collector, therefore, made the reference to the learned Senior Civil Judge. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed by the learned Senior Civil Judge:-
(1) Whether property acquired has been wrongly classified? If so, what is the correct classification?
(2) Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner is inadequate? If so, what is the correct compensation? OPP.
The learned Court recorded the evidence of the parties. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Senior Civil Judge directed further payment of Rs. 86, 179/- in favour of the respondent payable by the petitioners.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, argued that the learned Senior Civil Judge decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 erroneously in favour of the respondent without application of judicial mind. It was further argued that the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent had not Succeeded in establishing his case. It was not permissible for the learned Court to have granted the relief of accepting the petition of the respondent by awarding another sum of Rs.
86,179/-. It was further argued that the respondent had already received the amount as originally fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector although under protest including the compound interest.
Therefore, there was no justification for the learned Court to have enhanced the compensation plus 15% compound interest from the date of possession of the land till the date of the decree.
4. The respondent has not turned up despite service of notice. He is, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly taken the view that there was a gap of i.e years between the acquisition of land and the publication of the notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This long period could not be ignored as in the meantime the value of the land had significantly appreciated. No exception can be taken to the view taken by the learned Senior Civil Judge. I find that the judgment and decree was passed as back as on 21.4.1992 and it would be unjust to deprive the respondent to receive a sum of Rs. 86, 179/- decreed more than 6 1/2 years ago by the learned Senior Civil Judge.
The findings recorded by the learned Court are unexceptionable.
6. In this view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.