Muhammad Nawaz vs Land Acquisition Collector NHA

P L D 2014 Peshawar 58

Before Rooh-ul-Amin Khan and Syed Afsar Shah, JJ

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ---Appellant

Versus

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR NHA and 7 others---Respondents

Regular First Appeal No.77-B of 2012, decided on 10th June, 2013.

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---

----S. 18---Reference to court---Limitation---Reference application was dismissed by the Referee Court on the ground of limitation---Validity---Referee Court could not go behind the reference and its only job was to resolve the question referred to it by the Collector---Such court was not competent to reject reference on the point of limitation---Appeal was accepted and impugned judgment and decree were set aside and case was remitted back to the Referee Court for decision on merit.

Fazal Karim and 3 others v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and others PLD 1998 SC(AJ&K) 26; Muhammd Yousaf v. Collector Land Acquisition, District Skardu and 6 others 2007 CLC 1288 and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and others v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2004 Azad (J&K) 22 ref.

Shah Nawaz Khan Sikandri for Appellant.

Muhammad Ibrahim for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 10th June, 2013.

JUDGMENT

SYED AFSAR SHAH, J.---This regular first appeal is directed against the order dated 17-5-2012, passed by learned Referee Judge/Additional District Judge, Lakki Marwat on the reference of the appellant Muhammad Nawaz, whereby learned Referee Court has dismissed the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sent by the Collector concerned.

2.Facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal in brief are as under:-- On the basis of Award No.8 dated 6-2-2010 land measuring 12 kanals bearing khasra Nos. 2816 and 2826, situated in the local limits of Moza Tittar Gulli Jan Lakki Marwat, was acquired by the Government for construction of D.I. Khan Sarai Gambila road project (N-55) NHA. The rate of compensation was fixed as Rs.5414/50 per kanal in addition to the 15% compulsory acquisition charges and 6 % simple interest from the date of taking over possession. Muhammad Nawaz owner of the land, who was not satisfied with the rate of compensation, filed a reference with the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the contention that the compensation was not fixed in accordance with the market value of the acquired land. The reference so filed with the collector was sent to the learned Referee Judge, Lakki Marwat for further proceedings at that end. On receiving notice from the learned Referee Judge the respondents submitted their written reply, wherein they raised so many objections, both legal and factual. Learned Court after recording the evidence of the parties for and against dismissed the petition solely on the ground of limitation, vide his judgment/ order herein impugned.

3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and perused the relevant law on the subject as well.

4.It appears from the record available on file that learned Referee Court has thrown the reference mainly on the ground that it is barred by time and when he was confronted with the situation that it is not the job of the Referee Court to set on the issue like one and that it is the exclusive domain of the Collector, he opined that being a party to the reference/objection petition he was not supposed to be the judge of his own cause. We think that the learned Referee Judge has misconceived the situation in that Referee Court cannot go behind the reference and his only job is to resolve the question referred to him by the Collector. If any authority is needed reference can be made to case titled, "Fazal Karim and 3 others v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and others" (PLD 1998 SC (AJ&K) 26). Again as held in case titled "Muhammad Yousaf v. Collector Land Acquisition, District Skardu and 6 others" (2007 CLC 1288) the Referee Court has got no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to Judge competency of the reference on the point of limitation. It is the exclusive domain of the Collector to refuse reference to the Court if it is found that objection has been filed beyond the period given in the proviso of S. 18 of the Act. There, it has categorically been held that court is not competent to reject reference on the point of limitation. Again in case titled "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and others v. Muhammad Ishaq and others" (PLD 2004 Azad J&K 22), it was held that Referee Court could not go beyond the terms of reference, but could only look into the questions, which were specifically referred to it by the Collector and that it has got no jurisdiction to resolve question of limitation as it was entirely within the domain of the Collector, who had sent the reference to the Referee Court.

5.In view of the above, we by allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Referee Court dated 17-5-2012 and remit the case back to the Referee Court for its decision on merits.

AG/526/P Appeal accepted.