' TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.----Respondents No.1 to 4 herein acquired land measuring 39 Kanals 3 Marlas in Mauza Mardan and 29 Kanals 15 Marlas in Mauza Chak Mardan for the construction of Safety Wall outside Kalpani Nallah Mardan to save the valuable Abadi of Mardan City from the calamity of flood. The petitioners claimed to be owners of a portion of land in the acquired property, but the name oftheir predecessor was not mentioned in the Record of Rights and respondents Nos.1 to 4 had wrongly paid their share of compensation to respondents Nos.5 to 11, against which the petitioners filed an objection petition for correction of Record of Rights before respondent No.1 for referring the dispute to learned Acquisition Judge for decision. The said respondent dismissed the same vide his order dated 14-12-2002. Through the writ petition in hand the petitioners have prayed for declaring the order of respondent No.1 dated 14-12-2002 as illegal, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Mr. Saadullah Jandoli, the learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that predecessor of petitioners has purchased 5 Kanals 19 Marlas vide registered Sale-deed No.184, Book No.1, Volume 204 dated 24-2-1950 registered in the office of sub-Registrar Mardan, but unfortunately his name was not incorporated into the Revenue Record. When the petitioners approached respondent No.1 for payment of compensation for the acquired land of the petitioners, they were informed that the said amount has been paid to respondents Nos.5 to 11, who had been shown owners of the said land in the Revenue Record. They submitted objection petition under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, but instead of referring the same to the learned Referee Judge, the same was summarily rejected by respondent No.1 vide order dated 14-12-2002 which was illegal.
3. It was also argued that the objection petition filed by the petitioners was within time, but this fact was ignored by respondent No.l.
4. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Aman Khan, the learned counsel representing respondents Nos.5 to 11 argued that the objection petition filed by the petitioners was in substance under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Award in the case was announced on 20-2-2002, whereas objection petition was filed on 14-8-2002, which was hopelessly barred by time and was rightly dismissed by respondent No. 1.
5. We have heard the learned counsel. For the parties and perused the record.
6. Petitioners claim to be owners of land measuring 5 Kanals 19 Marlas situated at Chak Mardan on the basis of registered Sale-deed No.184 dated 24-2-1950, registered in the office of sub-Registrar Mardan. Respondent No.1 admittedly acquired land measuring 29 Kanals 15 Marlas situated at Mauza Chak Mardan including the land in dispute and land measuring 39 Kanals 3 Marlas in Mauza Mardan vide Award No.647-49, LA. Cell dated 20-2-2002. It is also admitted position that the compensation of the acquired land was given to those whose names were found mentioned in the Revenue Record. The claim of thepetitioners is that respondents Nos.5 to 11 were not entitled to receive compensation for land measuring 5 Kanals' 19 Marlas and they have wrongly been paid the compensation.
7. The question that requires consideration in this case is as to whether the objection petition filed by the petitioners before respondent No.1 was under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act or section 18 of the ibid Act, answer to this question is that the same was applicable under section 30 of the ibid Act, said section is reproduced hereunder for convenience:-- "Dispute as to apportionment.---When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11; if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as -to the persons to whom the same or .Any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court."
The word "dispute" in this section is very important. "Dispute" is to be taken in wide and not in literal sense and 'it implies any controversy as to title, whether as between the actual claimants or as appearing from the documents made available to the acquiring officials. It is obvious that when the State machinery exercises its power of eminent domain and acquires property, public funds have to be utilized for the payment of compensation to the true owners and if a dispute arises as to who was the true owner and was entitled for receipt of compensation, such dispute even if the controversy was with regard to the title .Of the parties is to be made to the Court enabling the party claiming to be the true owner to establish the title and its' entitlement to receive compensation amount.
8. Another question that arises here is as to whether an application under section 30 of the ibid Act is to be made before the payment of compensation or the same can be made after the amount had been paid, answer to this question is that if an application is given under section 30 of the bid Act, before disbursement/payment of the compensation amount, the Collector may without paying the amount to either of the parties refer the same to the competent Court and if such an application was given after Award, section 30 of the ibid Act cannot at all stand in the way of Reference, which the Collector might like to make to the Court for determination.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for "the respondents that under section 30 only the question of "apportionment" can be decided but this argument of the learned counsel has no force at all. Section 30 of the ibid Act contemplates the reference of such a dispute which may include the case where the Court has to decide between the rival claimants to the entire compensation.
The word "apportionment" should in fact be given liberal construction. In Mst. Khalida Bibi v. Mst.
Daryai Khunam and others (1994 M LD 2339) it was held:-- "Under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector can refer such dispute for decision of the Court."
' The same view was held in Mangladas Girdhardas Parekh v. The .Assistant Collector of Prantij Prant Ahmadabad (First Appeal No.124 of 1917), in the following words:-- "that in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, it is competent to the Court to adjudicate on any question of title to the land acquired, or to apportion the amount of compensation for it, as between the claimant and Government."
Likewise the same view, was adopted in the following judgments:--
(i) The State of Madras v. B.V. Subramania Iyer. (AIR 1962 Madras 313),
(ii) Pir Muhammad Salim Gilani v. S. Muhammad Ashraf Shah Gilani (PLD 1963 Azad J&K. 66) and
(iii) Nanak Chand v. Piran Ditta (AIR 1941 Lahore 268).
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the objection petition filed by the petitioners was barred by time and the same was rightly dismissed as such by the Collector also has no force. Perusal of section 30 of the ibid Act shows that no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing objection petition under the said section and Collector can refer the dispute at any time. Similar question came up for hearing before this Court in Mst. Khalida Bibi v. Mst. Daryai Khunam and others (1994 M LD 2339), in which it was held:- "Since no period of limitation is prescribed for filing an objection petition under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the Collector can refer the dispute at any time, hence in view of the above authorities objection with regard to period of limitation is ruled out."
11. The above discussion leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the objection application made by the petitioner claiming the compensation for their acquired land was applicable under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and since no period of limitation is prescribedfor filing the same, therefore, the same was wrongly rejected by respondent No.1 being barred by time. Since the question as to who was the true owner of the acquired land and was entitled to receive compensation requires determination which could only be determined by the Referee Court as no other forum has been provided for the said determination, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Collector to have referred the said application to the Referee Court, which was not done by him.
We, therefore, allow the writ petition in hand, set aside the impugned order passed by the Collector.
The objection application filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No.1, who shall refer the same to the Referee Court under the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no orders as to costs.