The Chief Engineer, Communication & Works Department Peshawar and others Vs Abdul Haseeb and others

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

[JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT]

RFA No. 270-P/2024

The Chief Engineer, Communication & Works Department, Peshawar and others ...............Appellants

Vs Abdul Haseeb and others...................Respondents Present: Syed Bilal Safi, AAG, alongwith Abu Bakar, SDO and M. Sami, SDC, C&W Highway, for the appellants.

Muhammad Rahman, Advocate, for the respondents.

Date of hearing: 22.09.2026

JU D G M EN T

MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J.- Through this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-XI / Referee Judge, Peshawar dated 27.05.2024, whereby the Reference of the respondents-landowners has been allowed and thereby enhanced the market value of the respondents’ acquired land to Rs. 340,000/- per Marla, alongwith 15% Compulsory Acquisition Charges and 6% per annum simple interest/annual increase till final payment.

2.Precisely, the facts necessary for the disposal of the aforesaid appeal is that Land Acquisition

Collector / Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar, after fulfilling of all the codal formalities including issuance of notification under section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter is to be referred as “The Act of 1894”), has acquired landed property through Award No. 21180/DC/LAC(NTA)/796/P dated 06.11.2017 for the construction/widening of “Chaghar Matti Bypass Road” situated at Mouza Chaghar Matti, Tehsil and District Peshawar, which carries the detail of Khasra Numbers of the acquired land, whereby market value of the acquired land was determined as Rs. 22,878/- per marla.

3.Being dissatisfied from the market value/ compensation of their acquired land as determined/fixed in the said Award, the respondents- landowners filed Reference / Objection petition under Section 18 of The Act of 1894, in which the present appellants (acquiring department) were summoned, however, despite ample opportunities, they failed to submit their written statement, resulting into striking-off their right to file the written statement under Order VIII Rule 10, C.P.C., vide order dated 27.03.2019, thereafter, the remaining official respondents were proceeded

against and placed exparte. The learned Referee Judge, after evaluating the ex-parte evidence and the report of local commission, allowed the Reference Petition vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.05.2024 and enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 340,000/- per Marla, along with 15% Compulsory Acquisition Charges and 6% per annum simple interest/annual increase till final payment.

Being aggrieved of the same, the appellants- acquiring department have now approached to this Court by filing the instant appeal.

4.Arguments heard and record perused.

5.During the course of arguments, the learned AAG representing the appellants-acquiring department stated that the learned Referee Judge has acted in haste by striking off the appellants’ defence and proceeded to decide the case exparte, thereby depriving them of a fair opportunity to present their defence. He further submitted that, as a consequence, the Reference Petition filed by the respondents- landowners was allowed and the amount of compensation was enhanced. As against this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-landowners submitted that the

appellants-acquiring department had deliberately neglected the judicial proceedings before the learned Referee Court for years, which ultimately resulted in the lawful striking off their defence under Order VIII Rule 10, C.P.C. He further contended that the said order was never challenged by the appellants and, thus attained finality and could not be set aside in these proceedings and as such ultimately the learned Referee Judge has rightly fixed the compensation amount of the acquired land.

6.In view of the above contentions, now this Court will proceed to answer the following questions:-

1)Whether the learned Referee Judge has rightly struck off the right of appellants for non- compliance of court order vide order dated 27.03.2019 and whether that order could be set aside in these proceedings which has arisen out of the final judgment of the learned Referee Judge?

2)Whether the market value of the acquired land as fixed by the Collector in the award dated 06.11.2017 is fair?

3)Whether the market value of the acquired land as fixed by the learned Referee Judge vide impugned judgment/ decree dated 27.05.2024 is correct and fair?

4)What should be a fair and correct market value of the acquired land?

5)Whether the learned Referee Judge could grant enhanced compensation to the landowners beyond the claim made in the reference petition or not?

7.As far as question No. 1 is concerned, the learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellants- acquiring department though vehemently argued that the appellants have not been provided an opportunity to defend the instant case as their right to file written statement has been struck off, however, the record would show that when the present appellants were summoned by the learned Referee Judge, they appeared and participated in the proceedings, and thereafter, they were repeatedly directed to submit their written statement, however, they did not avail the same, and ultimately, the pre-requisite notice was also issued to them, but even thereafter, they remained inactive, therefore, their right to defence was struck off as per mandate of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, and as the said order being an appealable order as per clause (b) of Rule I of Order XLIII of CPC and thus the appellants were required to challenge the same at that point of time but they did not, and thus, the said order has now attained finality for all legal and practical purposes and as such the same could not be set aside in these proceedings which is arising out of the final judgment of the learned Referee Judge.

8.As far as question No.2 is concerned, it is part of the record and as spelling out from the contents of

the award as well that the subject land was acquired by the appellants/acquiring department through Award No. 21180/DC/LAC(NTA)/796/P dated 06.11.2017, whereby the Collector has fixed the compensation amount as Rs. 22,878/- per marla on the basis of Ost-Yaksala ( )اوسط يکسالہwhich criterion is, on one hand, not in accordance with the spirit of section 23 of The Act of 1894 and on the other, the same has since been disapproved by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as by this court as it is settled since long that while determining the market value of the acquired land, Ost-Yaksala may be one of the factor, however, the same could not be an exclusive and authoritative factor for the same. The aforesaid established legal position could not be controverted by the learned AAG as well and rightly so as the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case1 has since been held that numerous judgments and dicta given and laid down by this court with binding and laying guiding principles on the subject issue have unfortunately and conveniently been ignored by the Collector as he remained stuck to the one year average without taking care of present and future Government of Pakistan through Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad and another vs Ghulam Murtaza and others (2016 SCMR 1141)

potentiality of the land acquired. It has been repeatedly laid down that being a compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, the owners of the land are deprived of its utility while at the same time the Collectors Acquisition simply impose their own opinion ordinarily based on one year average which is not a correct approach to the matter, as has been laid down by this court. Since in this case too, the Collector has fixed the compensation amount on the basis of Ost-Yaksala ( )اوسط يکسالہwhich is against the various judgments of the Apex Court, therefore, question No.1 is answered in negative.

9.As far as questions No.3 & 4 are concerned, the record would show that the respondents- landowners have brought on record substantial material to prove the market value of the acquired land at the time of its acquisition, as initially, they in their reference petition have categorically stated that the acquired land is situated at the brink of a metal road and is of a commercial nature, and its market value is not less than Rs. 300,000/-. They in their reference petition have also pleaded that the acquired land is situated aside Hira Public School and many other constructed property in the form of market, and

as such the acquired land has since been assumed the status of a commercial property. In order to further substantiate their stance, the respondents-landowners have also produced one Lal Badshah, son of Shah Mat Khan as PW-3, who is a Property Dealer of the area, and who too has categorically stated that the acquired land is situated on the brink of a metal road and that the market value of the acquired property in the year 2017 was approximately Rs. 300,000/- per marla, whereas its present market value (in the year, 2023) was stated to be Rs. 650,000/- per marla. The respondent-landowner namely, Ali Murtaza has also appeared in person as well as attorney for his brother namely, Abdul Haseeb, as PW-5, and who too has stated that the acquired land is situated on the road side and is of commercial nature, and that all social amenities like gas, electricity etc. are available on the acquired land. He has also stated that private schools, petrol pumps and hotels are situated near and around the acquired property.

10.In order to further substantiate their stance, a local commission namely, Shakeel Ahmad Khalil, Advocate, on the request of the respondents- landowners, was appointed by the learned Referee

Judge vide order dated 08.01.2024, and who visited the spot in the presence of Patwari Halqa, and who too in his report has opined that the acquired property is one of commercial nature. The relevant opinion/finding of the commission report is reproduced below:-

عدالت کے ہدايات کی روشنی ميں جائيداد متدعويہ کا معائنہ کيا جو کہ برلب بندوبستی روڈ چغر مٹی اصحاب بابا واقع ہے مشرق ميں چغر مٹی روڈ وحراء پبلک سکول پغر مٹی اور پيٹرول پمپ وغيره واقع، سروس ڈيگ،دکانات ہيں۔ جنوب ميں مارکيٹ عذرداران جبکہ مغرب ميں اصحاب بابا بائی پاس روڈ ہے۔

Apart from the aforesaid finding, the local commission has also prepared an Aks of the acquired land which has been appended with its report and the same would show that the acquired property is situated adjacent to the already constructed markets, petrol pumps, private schools etc. The local commission has also taken pain by recording statements of property dealers of the area, namely Sohail Ahmad Khan and Malik Wali Khan, who both have stated that they deal in the estate business and that the acquired property is situated on the road side and that its market value in the year 2017 was ranging from Rs.

340,000/- to Rs. 360,000/- per marla, and thus, in the given facts and circumstances,

the respondents-landowners have brought on record sufficient material to establish the market value of the acquired property, and as such, the learned Referee Judge has rightly enhanced the compensation amount.

11.As far as question No.5 is concerned, the learned AAG representing the appellants-acquiring department stated that since the respondents- landowners have claimed Rs. 300,000/- and the learned Referee Judge has granted Rs. 340,000/- per Marla, therefore, the learned Referee Judge could not grant an amount in excess of their prayer, however, such submission of the learned AAG is not legally sustainable as by now it is settled once for all that if the acquiring department succeeded to establish that after issuing of notice under Section 9 of The Act of 1894, the landowner has participated and has claimed a certain amount, then in such state of affairs, the learned Referee Judge as per mandate of Section 25 of The Act of 1894 could not grant an amount in excess thereof, however, where the participation of the landowner in the proceedings under Sections 9 & 10 have not been established, then in such eventuality, the learned Referee Judge could grant any amount and in this case, the appellants / acquiring

department have not been able to prove on record that they have issued notice to the respondents-land owners and thereof they have responded and claimed any amount, therefore, the learned Referee Judge has rightly fixed the compensation amount of the acquired land beyond the prayer of the respondents- landowners. In the case “Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Military Estates Officer, Hazara Circle Abbottabad and another .vs. Mst. Ayesha Bibi and others” (2024 SCMR 1323) exactly the same question came before the Apex Court which question has been framed in para-6 of the ibid judgment and its reply has been given in paras-7, 8 & 9. The said paras being relevant are reproduced below:-

7.To consider and better appreciate the objection raised by the learned Additional Attorney General that the Referee Court could not adjudge compensation exceeding the amount claimed in the reference applications, let us have a read of Section 25 of the Act, which provides that: -

25.Rules as to amount of compensation.

(1)When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed.

(2)When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case

exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

(3)When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court may exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. A careful perusal of Section 25 of the Act reflects that it sets a condition precedent to the limit of the compensation that could be awarded, where claim is made or not made pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 of the Act. The said Section provides:

9.Notice to persons interested.

(1)The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him.

(2)Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent.

(3)The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.

(4)In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1866.

(5)The Collector shall also serve notice of the enquiry to be held under section 11 (such notice not being less than fifteen days prior to the date fixed under subsection (2) for determination of claims and objections) on the Provincial Government, the federal Government, a local authority or Company, as the case may be, for which land is being acquired, and require it to depute a duly authorised representative to attend the enquiry on its behalf for the purpose of making objections (if any) to the measurement of the land, claims to any interest in the land or the amount of any compensation. Such authorised representative shall be a party to the proceedings.

8.A careful and conjunctive read of the two sections makes it clear that: in the first instance, Section 9 commands the Collector to give public notice, stating the intention of the Government to take possession of the land to be acquired, and inviting claims to compensation for all interests in such land, at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, seeking all interested parties to personally appear or send an agent before the Collector within a specified timeframe, stating their interests, compensation claims, and objections to the land measurements, with the option for the Collector to ask statements in writing signed by the party or their agent; notably, the Collector shall also serve notice to the occupier (if any) of the land and all individuals known or believed to have an interest in the land, or who are entitled to act on behalf of such interested parties, within the revenue district where the land is located; and additionally, if a person with an interest in the land resides elsewhere and has no agent, the notice must be sent to their last known address via registered post. And it is only when the requirements of Section 9 of the Act are validly complied with that the penal, stringent, and restrictive provisions of Section 25 of the Act, limiting the amount of compensation to be awarded to the landowners

become applicable. Therefore, it is imperative to fulfill the preceding requirements; otherwise, invoking or enforcing Section 25 to constrain the Referee Court, within the amount of compensation claimed before the Collector, as provided under Section 25(1) or within the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector as provided under Section 25(2) of the Act would be inappropriate.

9.In the case in hand, the respondents asserted in the reference applications that no notices under Section 9 of the Act were ever issued to them or served on them. In turn, the appellant was required to prove that the notices were duly served and the requirements of Section 9 of the Act were strictly complied with. However, the evidence produced on behalf of the appellant, apart from the production of the notices (Exhibit PW4/4) suggesting the issuance of the notices under Section 9 of the Act, is not sufficient to controvert the assertion of the respondents, regarding the non-delivery of notices. Relevant documents, including the order sheets of the Collector and receipts relating to dispatch or delivery of notices, should have been produced to show that the requirements of Section 9 of the Act were strictly complied with. However, the appellant failed to establish the same. Accordingly, the objection raised by the learned Additional Attorney General representing the appellant based on Section 25(1) and Section 25(2) of the Act are without merit.

12.Even otherwise, this Court gone through the impugned judgment and decree of learned Referee Judge and found that it has applied a correct yardstick while determining the market value of the acquired land as it has rightly considered not only the existing market value of the acquired land but its future potentiality, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is not required to be interfered with by this Court. It has been the consistent view of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as of this court that while determining the market value of the acquired land, not only the existing potentiality and market value of the

acquired land is to be considered but its future potentiality is also to be taken into consideration. It has also to be born in mind that it is not a transaction between a willing purchaser and a willing seller rather it is a transaction which has been enforced upon the land owners. It is also to be kept in mind that while determining the market value of the acquired land the land owners are not only to be paid the market value of the acquired land but they are to be compensated in such a manner so that in future they may not feel any depravation for striking of a losing transaction and as such by applying the aforesaid yardstick, the learned Referee Judge has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land.

13.The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently in a case2 has traced out the judicially approved criteria for the determination of the fair market value of the acquired land. Para No.9 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced below:-

“9. This Court, while interpreting Section 23 of the Act has interpreted potential value to mean and include the following factors:

i. The land has potentiality if it is in close proximity to a residential area, or the municipal limits of a city.

Also to be considered is that the

Federal Government of Pakistan Through Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi And Others vs Mst.Zakia Begum and others (PLD 2023 Supreme Court

acquisition of such land is proof of its potential for development. (Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Abdul Qayyum Malik and others

1980 SCMR 63).

ii. The land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time at which its value has to be determined, but also by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future; and market-value is the potential value of the property at the time of acquisition which would be paid by a willing buyer to a willing seller, when both are actuated by business principles prevalent in the locality at that time. (Fazalur Rahman and others v. General Manager, S.I.D.B and another PLD 1986 SC 158).

iii. Revenue record is not conclusive of the value of the land, rather it is the value of the use which the land is capable of and the use of the land in the vicinity. (Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/ Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others 1991 SCMR 2164 and Land Acquisition Collector, G.S.C., N.T.D.C., (WAPDA), Lahore and another v. Mst. Surraya Mehmood Jan 2015 SCMR 28).

iv. The Court is to take into consideration the potentialities of the land, which may even include the price escalation, (sic) the issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. (Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and others v. Muhammad Iqbal and others 1992 SCMR 1245) and Sarhad Development Authority, NWFP (now KPK) through COO/CEO (Officio) and others v. Nawab Ali Khan and others 2020

SCMR 265).

v. For determining the price which a willing purchaser would give to the willing seller relying only on past sales is not enough as the value of the land with all its potentialities may be determined by examining local property dealers or other persons who are likely to know the price that the property can fetch in the open market. Where land is acquired near the Highway, its potentiality and future prospects are to be considered (Maqbool Ahmed Fatehally and others v. The Collector, District Lasbella and others 1992 SCMR 2342).

vi. The possibility of land being used for a different purpose in future and its potential value on account of its situation near the developed area is important. (Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur, District Bahawalpur and others v. Col. Abdul Majeed and others 1997 SCMR 1692).

vii. Classification or the nature of land may be taken as relevant consideration but that is not the whole truth. An area may be Banjar Qadeem or Barani but its market value may be tremendously high because of its location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits. The potential uses to which the land can be put to is relevant. (Murad Khan through his widow and 13 others v. Land Acquisition, Collector, Peshawar and another 1999 SCMR 1647).

viii. Amenities such as roads, water, gas, electricity are relevant as is availability of schools and colleges in the vicinity of the acquired land. Urbanization of the area shows great potentiality of the area. (Ministry of Defence

through Secretary, Government of Pakistan and others v. Syed Wajdi Rizvi 2009 SCMR 105 and WAPDA through S.E. Acquiring Cell CRBC Project WAPDA, D.I. Khan and another v. Syed Ali and others

2010 SCMR 82).”

In another case3, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has traced out all those factors which are to be considered while fixing the market value of the acquired land. Para No.7 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced below:

“Under section 23(1) of the Act, compensation is to be determined on the basis of the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The Court assessing compensation is required to take into consideration not only the present purpose or the present use to which the land is applied but also any other more beneficial purpose to which it might reasonably be put by the owner. Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam [AIR 1939 PC 98]. Indubitably, it is true that regard can be had only to the existing conditions and what is likely to happen in reasonably near future and compensation cannot be fixed on the basis of what might happen in the dim and distant future. Where there is a reasonable possibility of the land being put to a more profitable use within a reasonable period the same cannot be ignored in assessing its value. Bailey v. Isle of Thanet Light Railways Company [(1990) 1 QB 722]. Compensation has always to be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor may reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. Fazalur Rehman and others v. General Manager, SIDB and another [PLD 1986 SC 158]. When the land possesses some unusual, special or unique features as to its location or Malik Tariq Mehmood and others vs Province of Punjab and others (2023

SCMR 102)

potentialities, due weight must be attached to all these elements. Askari Cement through Chief Executive v. Land Acquisition Collector (Industries) Punjab, etc [2013 SCMR 1644]. After considering all the circumstances, the Court has to arrive at a fair estimate with reference to the surrounding circumstances and evidence in the case and to award a fair compensation on that basis. The Court further ought to be liberal in the sense that it should not be too meticulous or pedantic in dealing with the evidence. It is also true that an entry in the revenue record as to the nature of the land may not be conclusive. If the land acquired is found to be useful both for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes, merely on the ground that it was used as agricultural land by the owner till the time of its acquisition, its potentiality as non-agricultural land cannot be ignored. Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Abbottabad and others [1991 SCMR 2164].”

Recently in two other cases4 as well, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has extended the scope of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act by observing that since a citizen/land owner is subject to eminent domain of the government, therefore, the claims of the land owners is to be considered sympathetically. Para No.8 of the judgment reported as 2023 SCMR 700 being relevant is reproduced below:

“8. It is important to state that the intention of the legislature behind section 23 was that whenever a Court is determining the quantum of compensation to be awarded to those who had been subjected to exercise of the power of National Highway Authority vs Rai Ahmad Nawaz Khan and others (2023

SCMR 700)

Nawabzada Abdul Qadir Khan and others vs Land Acquisition Collector Mardan and others (2023 SCMR 950)

eminent domain under the LAA 1894, it needs to be considerate and sympathetic towards the claims made by those whose property was compulsorily taken by the state against their will for a public purpose. Section 23 allows a Court to compensate such landowners for giving up their properties for the greater good, on the doctrine of individual rights must give way to the greater public interest (salus populi suprema lex esto).”

In the same way, in another case5 the Apex Court has held that yet, the sole reliance of the Collector on a one-year average price to determine the amount of compensation overlooks the distinctive attributes and future potential of the acquired property. While the one-year average price may be a factor in determining the market value of the land, it cannot be the sole determinant. In assessing compensation, the Collector must consider not only the current market value of the land but also its potential value. The market value is to be taken up as one existing on the date of taking possession of the land while the potential value is the value to which similar lands could be put to any use in future.

Thus, in determining the quantum of compensation, the exercise may not be restricted to the time of taking possession of the land, but its future value shall also be taken into account. And this crucial aspect was strikingly lacking in the award Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpndi Military Estates Officer, Hazara Circile, Abbottabad and another .vs. Mst. Ayesha Bibi (Widow) and others (2024 SCMR 1323)

determined by the Collector, so vehemently relied on by the learned Additional Attorney General.

Likewise, in a case6 the Apex Court has held that it is by now settled that the most important aspect qua the lands compulsorily acquired is that the mandatory returns proposed to be given to the land owner is the 'compensation' and not merely the market value of such land. In this regard, it is noteworthy, as held by this Court in "Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Mst Iqbal Begum and others" (PLD 2010 SC 719) that compensation should be 'gold for gold' and not 'copper for gold'. A perusal of Section 23 of the Act reflects that various factors are to be taken under consideration while determining compensation, with market value being just one such factor as reiterated in "The Province of Sindh v. Ramzan and others" (PLD 2004 SC 512).

Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that compensation is a very wide term, indicating that the land owners, for various reasons, are to be compensated and not merely paid the price of the land which is just an interaction of supply and demand fixed between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Additionally, although, mere classification or Province of Punjab through District Collector / District Officer (Rev), Lahore and others .vs. Malik Abdul Latif Amar (2025 SCMR 830)

nature of land, can be taken as a relevant consideration for the purposes of determining compensation, it is not an absolute one. Factors such as location, neighbourhood, potentiality or other benefits could not be disregarded either. Indeed, the place and situation of the acquired land are paramount considerations that must be accorded due and thoughtful attention in the fair assessment of compensation.

So keeping in view the above string of authorities and the material on record as well as the commission report and the judicial consensus developed so far qua the matters which are to be considered for determination of the market value of the acquired land, the learned Referee Judge has rightly considered the material on record and as such it has rightly corrected the award and thus its judgment and decree needs no interference by this Court.

14.In view of the above discussion and expositions of law on the subject, the instant appeal being bereft of any merit is dismissed and consequently the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-XI / Referee

Judge, Peshawar dated 27.05.2024 is maintained and upheld.

Announced

JUDGE

(S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan Noor Shah