2020 C L C 1916
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Abdul Hameed Baloch, JJ
Dr.M. SALAH -UD-DIN MENGAL and another ----Appellants
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Board of Revenue and 2 others ----
Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2015, decided on 11th December, 2019.
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) ---
----S.18 ---Reference to Court ---Limitation ---Scope --- Appellant assailed order of court
whereby the reference was dismissed being barred by time---Validity ---Collector had
forwarded the reference to the Court for adjudication without any objection of limitation---
Question of limitation had to be determined by the Collector before sending the reference to
the Court ---Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provided limita tion period for
filing the reference before the Collector and not to the Court ---When the Collector had made
the reference to the court then the question of limitation became redundant and could not be gone into by the referee court ---Reference was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to
decide the same on merits ---Appeal was allowed.
Bashir Ahmed v. The Collector Multan PLD 1962 (W.P) Lah. 292 and S.Attar Singh
R.S Sardar Hira Singh v. Secretary of State for India AIR 1940 Pesh. 35 ref.
Fazal Kari m v. Azad Government of the Sate of Jammu and Kashmir PLD 1998 SC
(AJ&K) 26 rel.
Najam -ud-Din Mengal for Petitioner.
Abdul Latif Kakar, AAG for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 9th December, 2019.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. -----Through this appeal the appellant prayed as
under:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the record of the court below may kindly be called for and after examining the same the operation of impugned order dated 24.06.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge -V Quetta may kindly be set -
aside and case may kindly be remanded for de -novo proceedings and providing
opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence and matter be decided on its own
merits, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, with the averments that the appellants owned certain lands in Quetta Town measuring 67205.50 sq.ft bearing different Khasra numbers, situated in Mahal Karez Kamaloo, Karez Sarda, Karez Mian Khan, Mouza Aziz Khan, Tappa Shadanzai, Tehsil and District Quetta; that the said land situated on main Qambrani Road/Mastung Road started from Sabzal Road l inking with
Hazar Ganji Mastung Road, which has been expanded and dual carriage way had already
been completed since long; that there was running business of Poultry Farm of appellant
No.1 on the said plot which was being used as commercial plot and six shades along with nine rooms and tube -well along with water tank was being utilized for the said Poultry Farm
since long time, and it was the only business and source of income of the entire family of the appellants having more than 10,000 birds at a time; t hat Kechi Beig Police Station was
approved by Government of Balochistan and no one was willing to provide land for the said purpose and there was no other alternate building available for the last 2/3 years to the Police
Department to establish the Police Station for controlling the law and order situation in the
area; that the Collector/Deputy Commissioner Quetta approached the appellant No.1 on 17th August, 2010 for handing over the said Poultry Farm to the Police Department for establishing Kechi Beig Po lice Station on war footing basis; that the police authorities
occupied the said premises and established the Police Station within 24 hours, the shades were converted into barracks and rooms were converted into police station Kechi Baig on 28.08.2012; tha t on 1st September 2012 the Government of Balochistan authorized the F.C.
to power of policing, to conduct raids and search in the area and troop of F.C were also
deployed in the said Police Station Kechi Beig; that the appellants approached Collector/Depu ty Commissioner for assessment of the building and other shades etc, for the
purpose of compensation and determined the same by C&W Department because it was a commercial building not an agriculture barren land; that the Collector/Deputy Commissioner Quett a also directed the Executive Engineer Project -II, Quetta to carry out assessment of the
said building which was regarding demolishing of buildings wall etc; that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Quetta directed the Tehsildar City Quetta for as sessing the
process of the land through Patwari on 30.08.2012; that the Patwari of the area assessed the land as a agricultural barren land and estimated three years MALIA and fixed same as Rs.30 -
35 sq.ft; that the said superstructure of the Poultry Farm w as assessed by QDA Engineer, as
bricks A -I class used; and entire construction of the bricks for 70,000/ - sq.ft boundary wall
etc costs Rs.82,28,000/ -; that the private engineer had also assessed the said building of
poultry farm and assessed the market value approximately Rs.80,00000/ - to 85,00000/ -; tasht
the Collector/Deputy Commissioner Quetta passed award on 19th March, 2014 and fixed Rs.391 per Sq.Ft and allowed one year additional Cost 15% under land authorities for annual additional cost of 15% on 12.05.2013; that the Patwari and Tehsildar City Quetta ordered and estimated the said land as barren agricultural land, it was a commercial building and running business of the Poultry was going on, which was closed and heavy loss occurred to the applicant in emergency handing over and taking over of the commercial plot, closing
business on; that the said plot is situated on main dual highway road and the front portion is
more than 350 sq.ft which was a commercial plots of the appellants and the estimated market
value is from Rs.1000/ - to 1200/ - per sq.ft at present; that the superstructure for demolishing
was assessed by the C&W Department as Rs.20,48,013/ -, A-1 bricks were not handed over to
the appellant No.1 still struggling for the same, which were usurped by the concerned quarter and the assessment market value is Rs.80,00,000/ -; that the final payment was made over
upon the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan in the month of September, 2014
but the additional cost 15% per annum has not be en paid till date, since 2012 up to 2014 for
which the appellants are entitled in the lights of law of the Land Acquisition Act and at the
same time of award the appellant No.1 was at Islamabad not heard by the Collector, objected regarding the rates of la nd and received Cheque under protest; that during the said
proceedings the appellant No.1 was kidnapped on 3rd April, 2013 and after payment of huge amount of ransom, Rs.70,00,000/ - (Rupees Seventy Lacs), which seems the result of this
transaction; which w as transmitted to the Additional District Judge -V Quetta for trial.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Quetta forwarded the reference to the District Judge
Quetta, The District Judge, Quetta after receipt of reference transferred the same to the Additional Distri ct Judge -V, Quetta (the trial Court) for trial. The respondent No.3 on receipt
of notice, filed para -wise comments. The trial court after hearing the parties, vide order dated
24th June, 2015 (impugned order) dismissed the reference being barred by time. H ence this
appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned AAG and have perused
the record. The perusal of record reveals that the Collector/Deputy Commissioner Quetta has forwarded the reference to the Court for adjudication withou t any objection of limitation. The
question as to whether the reference was within time or not was to be determined by the
Collector before sending the reference to the Court. Section 18 of the Land Revenue Act, provides limitation period for filing the re ference before the Collector but not to the Court.
Once the Collector make a reference to the referee court then the question of limitation become redundant and should not be gone into by the referee court. This view was affirmed in PLD 1998 SC (AJ&K) 26 t itled "Fazal Karim v Azad Government of the Sate of Jammu
and Kashmir" and PLD 1962 (W.P) Lahore 292 titled "Bashir Ahmed v. The Collector Multan" and AIR 1940 Peshawar 35 titled "S.Attar Singh R.S Sardar Hira Singh v. Secretary of State for India".
6. In Fazal Karim's case, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has held as
under:
"It is evident from the authorities cited above that after the dictum of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the matter stands settled. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid authorities of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and hold that the High Court was not competent to go into the question of limitation and dismiss the appeals on the ground that the applications for making references to the Collector
were time- barred."
In view of above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order, dated 24.06.2015,
passed by the trial court is set- aside. The reference is remanded to the trial court with
directions to provide opportunity to the parties to produced ev idence and to decide the same
on merits strictly in accordance with law.
SA/3/Bal.
Case remanded.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.