CHAIRMAN WAPDA, LAHORE versus MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ KHAN
Sections 4, 11, 18, 23 and 54 appeal to the referee with respect to the collector's land acquisition landlord, whose land was not satisfied with the award / assessment of the acquisition of the land in respect of acquired land compensation, In the referee's court, the Syed court concluded that the land acquired was of probable value and that the land acquisition collector had paid a very modest amount. And that he valued the confiscated land. The reference petition filed by the landlord through the referee court, the authorities filed an appeal against the decision of the referee court under which the compensation amount was increased by the same award, the land of another landlord was acquired. It was from the same land and the land against which the reference was filed and the referee court raised the compensation from Rs 4000 to Rs 8,000 per kanal as the referee court raised the issue and filed it through the Appellate Division and the Land Acquisition Collector. An appeal was filed when the land was acquired by the same award, which was earlier upheld by the High Court. If the decision was made by the referee court and the decree, which was absolutely correct, the appeal could not be interfered with by the decision of the High Court and according to the law and principles of appreciation, the trial court / referee court's The decree is absolutely correct. Evidence on record, requesting uninterrupted intervention \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2009
