2015 C L C 97
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ
SABZAL and 9 others ----Petitioners
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR and 2 others ----Respondents
Constitutional Petition No.70 of 2011, decided on 30th October, 2014.
(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) ---
----Ss. 18 & 12 (2) ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition ---Land
acquisition ---Reference---Limitation ---Condonation of delay ---Deputy Commissioner/Collector
rejected reference/application as being time -barred ---Contention of landowners was that market
value of the acquired land had not been assessed according to law and Deputy
Commissioner/Collector had got no jurisdiction to reject the reference ---Validity ---Applicants
pursuant to award had received compensation and during the process of acquisition proceedings
they had raised no objection---Government had acquired land in the year 2006- 2007 after
fulfilment of all the requirements ---Landowners had filed reference in the yea r 2010 without
mentioning the date of the same which was rejected by the Collector on the point of limitation ---
No separate application with the reference for condonation of period of limitation was filed--- If
any pleadings had been submitted beyond the pr escribed period of limitation then same could not
be entertained and one had to submit an application for condonation of period of limitation--- If
any person made reference/objection to the Collector at the time of announcement of an award
then he/she was obliged to file application within six weeks from the date of award announced
by the Collector ---If Landowner was served by the Collector then reference should have been
filed within six weeks after receipt of notice ---If at the time of announcement of awa rd landlord
was not served with notice then he was required to file reference within six months ---Collector
was competent to reject the reference if same was beyond the limitation ---Constitutional petition
was dismissed in circumstances.
2007 CLC 1288 a nd Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province of Punjab through Collector
Bahawalpur and others 1992 CLC 1775 rel
(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) ---
-----S. 18--- Land acquisition---Reference--- Limitation ---If any person made reference/objection
to the Coll ector at the time of announcement of an award then he/she was obliged to file
application within six weeks from the date of award announced by the Collector ---If landlord
was served by the Collector then reference should have been filed within six weeks af ter receipt
of notice ---If at the time of announcement of award landlord was not served with notice then he
was required to file reference within six months.
S.A.M. Quadri and Sabira Islam for Petitioners.
Humayun Tareen, Addl.A.- G. for Respondent No.1.
Ikhlaq Ahmed Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2.
Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for Respondent No.3.
Date of hearing: 29th September, 2014.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J. --- Through the instant Constitutional Petition, the
petitioners ha ve challenged order dated 21st December, 2010, passed by District Collector
Gwadar, whereby reference/application filed by the petitioners was rejected. The petitioners have
sought following relief:---
"It is, therefore, prayed that the order passed by respondent No.1 on 21- 12-2010 may be
declared as illegal and without jurisdiction and by setting aside the same, directions may be
issued to respondent No.1 for referring the objections of petitioners to District Court, Gwadar for
deciding the same on meri ts in accordance to law."
2. Facts of the case are that the Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence
Islamabad in the years 2006 and 2007 acquired 9270 acres and 4300 acres land situated at Mouza
Gurandani Shumali, Darbela Janubi, Ziarat Machi an d Surbendar of Tehsil and District, Gwadar
for the purpose of Joint Defence Complex. After adopting all the legal codal formalities,
compensation was disbursed amongst the land owners including petitioners. After the acquisition
process, mutation entries w ere recorded in favour of the respondent No.2 on 15th May, 2008 and
the possession of land was also handed over. During the process of acquisition, the petitioners
had not raised any objection, however on 31st March 2010 filed a reference before respondent
No.1 i.e. Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gwadar, which was rejected on 21st December, 2010.
The relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below: ---
"I have perused the record and considered the contentions put forth by the counsel and
revenue officials. Since the application is time barred and the applicants have received the
compensation money without any objection at the time of receiving cheques so the application is
not maintainable under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and is according ly rejected."
3. The petitioners through the instant petition have challenged the aforesaid orders.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had objection
regarding the settlement carried out in the District by the reve nue staff, wherein several
irregularities had been committed; that acquisition procedure had not been adopted according to
law and publication was not made in the newspaper widely circulated in the Gwadar and other
part of Balochistan and Karachi nor neces sary measures had been taken to bring notice within
the knowledge of the land owners regarding acquisition of land; that several land owners had
expired prior to settlement proceedings, but their legal heirs were not brought on record nor
entries in the re venue record were made accordingly. The market value of the acquired land had
not been assessed according to law which at the relevant time was more than 40 lacs per acre;
that respondent No.1 has got no jurisdiction to reject the reference as under section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter the "Act 1894"), he was under obligation to refer the
reference to the District Judge for adjudication, but he himself exercised the authority not vested
in him.
As against this, the learned counsel for re spondent No.3 stated that petitioners had
received full and final payment in satisfaction of the award without any objection; that
respondent No.1 rejected the reference filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act as being
barred by time; that proceedin gs for acquisition of the land were made for establishment of the
New Gwadar International Airport and establishment of the Joint Defence Complex (Gwadar
Cantonment) with due process of law under the Act, 1894 and published notification under
sections 4, 6 and 7, as such, the constitutional petition is not maintainable.
5. The learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 contended that the process in
respect of the award had already been completed in accordance with law in the year 2008 and
after passing award and till handing over the possession of the property, no objection whatsoever
were raised by the petitioners; that proceeding in respect of reference initiated by the petitioners
were hopelessly time- barred.
6. The learned Additional Advocate -General on behalf of the respondent No.1 stated that
instant constitutional petition is not competent against order passed by Deputy
Commissioner/Collector within the view of section 18 of Act, 1894; that after the acquisition
process, the mutation entries in the name of respondent No.2 were made out on 15th August,
2008 and possession of land was also handed over to the respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1
had received their due compensation and no objection whatsoever was raised; that petitioners
have no locus standi to file the instant petition as law does not permit them to invoke the
controversial matter in a constitutional petition.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents
appended along with petition. The petitioners in their reference/objection under Section 18 of
Act, 1894 filed before respondent No.1 have challenged the operation of settlement of the area
and the irregularities thereto, whereas admittedly they have received their due compens ation and
accepted the award, however, after the award, section 18 of the Act, 1894 provides a remedy of
reference, which is reproduced herein below: ---
"18. Reference to Court. --- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by
written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount
of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the appoint ment of the compensation
among the person interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made: ---
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the collector at the time when
he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under
section 12, subsection (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award
whichever, period shall first expire.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 21, the Provincial
Government may, if it has not accepted the award, refer the matter to the Court within a pe riod of
six months from the date of announcement of the award; provided the Court shall not entertain
the reference unless in its opinion there is a prima facie case for inquiry into and determination
of the objection against the award.
8. It is obvious that an aggrieved person can file a reference in view of the aforesaid
provision of law, which is confined to the grievances mentioned therein. The petitioners through
the reference had challenged the operation of settlement carried out in the year of 2006- 2007, for
which the reference authority as per section 18 of the Act had no jurisdiction.
9. The petitioners pursuant to award had received respective compensation and during the
process of acquisition proceedings, they have raised no objection. It is noted that Government of
Pakistan (respondent No.2) in the year 2006- 2007 had acquired 9270- 000 acres and 4300- 0-39
acres land in Mouza Gorandani Shomali, Gorandani Junobi, Ziarat Machi Sharki and Surbandar
Tehsil Gwadar, after fulfilment of all formalities as laid down in the Act, 1894. The petitioners
had filed reference in the year 2010 without mentioning the date of reference, however the
respondent No.1 vide order dated 21st December, 2010 rejected the reference on the point of
limitation. It is also ev ident that the petitioners along with the reference had not filed any
separate application for condonation of period of limitation. It is a settled principle of law that
one must submit an application for the condonation of period of limitation and if any pleading
has been submitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation that cannot be entertained. So far
as the question of reference is concerned, section 18 of the Act, 1894 provides three different
types of limitation for filing a reference. Firstly, if the person makes reference/objection to the
Collector, presents/represents before the Collector at the time of announcement of an award,
he/she is obliged to file the application to the Collector within six weeks from the date of award
announced by the C ollector. Secondly, if the landlord was served by the Collector under section
12(2) of the Act, where he reached notice then after receipt of notice. Thirdly, if the time of
announcement of the award he was not served with notice under section 12(2), then under the
law he is required to file the reference within six months.
10. The record shows that the land in the reference was acquired through award dated 26th
February, 2008. The petitioners were well aware about the award and they have received due
compensation without raising any objection. Had they been aggrieved of award, they would
have/had filed a reference within a period as mentioned hereinabove.
11. The contention of the learned counsel that the respondent No.1/Collector was not
competent to r eject the reference on the point of limitation is not tenable as the respondent No.1
Collector Gwadar under the law was competent to reject the reference if the same is beyond the
limitation. In case reported in 2007 CLC 1288, the time -barred reference was not considered and
in the case of Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur
and others (1992 CLC 1775), it was held as under: ---
"It is a settled principle of law that the Court cannot go behind the Reference and possess
jurisdiction to determine only such questions as are referred to it specifically. The designated/
Reference Court has no jurisdiction to determine question of limitation. This function is within
the sole domain of the Collector who sends reference under se ction 18 of the Act. Reference be
made to Government of West Pakistan (Now Government N.- W.F.P.) through Collector
Peshawar v. Arbab Haji Ahmad Ali Jan and others PLD 1981 SC 516 and Government of West
Pakistan (N. -W.F.P.) and 2 others v. Mst. Asmatun Nisa and 6 other PLD 1983 SC 109."
Thus, in view of above, C.P. No.70 of 2011 has no force, which is dismissed accordingly.
AG/78/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.