Chan Shah Vs General Manager NHA

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT D.I.KHAN BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

WP No. 563 of 2011.

Date of hearing 10.06.2015.

Appellant / petitioner (Chan Shah etc) by Mr. Muhammad Wahid Anjum Advocate.

Respondent (General Manager NHA etc) by Mr. Amir Muhammad Khan Baloch Advocate.

MUHAMMAD GHAZANFER KHAN J.- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity, propriety and legality of order passed by respondent No.9 dated 18-6-2011, vide which his objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was turned down.

2.Briefly stated facts of the present case are that land owned by the petitioner bearing khasra No.712 situated in revenue estate Noon was acquired through Award No.2 dated 24-12-2007 for construction of Serai- Gambila Project, but no payment was made to him under the mis-conception that this khasra number was owned by the Government. So the petitioner knocked at the doors of Justice and as a result a decree was passed in his favour which on appeal was upheld by the appellate

Court vide judgments and decrees dated 22/10/2009 and 23/11/2010 respectively. The petitioner filed objection petition wherein the respondents determined Rs. Five lac per kanal as compensation which the petitioner received under protest and then for enhancement of compensation presented objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but respondent No.9 with malafide intention vide order dated 18-6-2011 rejected the same, but just on flimsy grounds, hence the present petition.

3.We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance.

4.The controversy between the parties relates to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which reads as under:-

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 persons to whom it

is payable, or the apportionment of the

compensation among the persons

interested”.

5.Bare reading of this section leads one to the conclusion that on receipt of objection petition, the Collector has no other option but to send the petition to Referee Judge though with any valid and legal objection, but the Collector has no power to decide the objection petition himself. The word ‘Reference’has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows:-

“Reference:- The Act of Sending or

directing another, For information,

Service, consideration or decision,

Specific, the Act of sending a case to a Master or Referee for information or

decision”.

6.The section of law with its Heading

“Reference to Court” bounds the Collector to send any objection petition received by him to the Referee Judge.

Under the law, the Collector has no authority or jurisdiction to decide the objection petition on his own.

Similarly, the word “Reference”, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, further clarifies the legal position.

7.For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of the Collector is ab initio void, without jurisdiction and having no legal effect upon the rights of the petitioner.

Hence the writ petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the Collector for transmitting it to the Referee Judge who shall decide it in accordance with law.

ANNOUNCED JUDGE

JUDGE