1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 5-3-2005, passed by the Collector Land Acquisition/Deputy Commissioner Gilgit, whereby the reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, stating time-barred.
2. ' The facts leading to the writ petition are that, a piece of land owned by the petitioner was acquired by the respondents, the award was passed by the respondent No,1 on 20-9-2000 and amount of compensation was received by the petitioner on 18-7-2002 and after receiving the amount the petitioner filed an application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, before the respondent on 18-8-2002, whereby the petitioner prayed for reference to the Referee Court/District Judge. The respondent No,1 sent the application to the Assistant Commissioner, Gilgit for comments/report and after receiving report from Assistant Commissioner, respondent No,1 dismissed the application as non-maintainable and time-barred, hence, this writ petition.
3. ' We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate-General for respondents Nos.1 and 4 while respondents Nos.2 and 3 were represented by Mr. Riaz Ahmad, Advocate.
4. ' The learned counsel urged that, the award dated 20-9-2002, was passed without complying with mandatory provisions like sections 6-7-911 and 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act as such the award is void and without jurisdiction. Hence no limitation runs to assail the same. Therefore, respondent No,1 has erred in law by holding the reference application to be time-barred, secondly he stated, that, the impugned order is unheard and as such it has been passed, against well settled principle of "Audi alteram partem".
5. ' On the other hand before going into the merits of the case, the learned A.-G. Very rightly conceded that, the impugned order is unheard as such it has no legal sanction. The learned A.-G.
6. Also agreed to the view taken by the Court, that, respondent No,1 has committed illegality by sending the application to the Assistant Commissioner for comments/report, while under Land Acquisition Act, the respondent is neither empowered to delegate his powers to any subordinate of him nor the Assistant Commissioner stands anywhere in the Act.
7. 'The upshot of the above discussion is that, the impugned order, dated 5-3-2003 is set aside, and the case is remanded to respondent No,1 to dispose of the same on merits after hearing the petitioner.