1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.--- By this appeal judgment dated 16-10-2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Nawabshah in Land Acquisition Reference No,1 of 2004 has been challenged by the Government of Sindh. By the judgment, the learned Referee Court has allowed the claim of the respondent in the sum of Rs,7,26,175.
2. ' The brief facts of the matter are that through Notification dated 5-5-1973, the Government of Sindh has acquired land in different Survey Number of Deh 50-Dad Taluka Nawabshah, for the purpose of Mehar Link Drain of Ghorabari outfall Drain and Notification dated 30-1-1974 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. It appears hat the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 17-11-1975, whereby the respondent was allowed compensation in the sum of Rs,5,916 for acquiring his 0.33 1/3 acres of land and granted interest at 6% from the date of possession upto the date of payment of compensation. It appears from the Award that the respondent was not associated while considering the compensation nor it appears that notice under section 12(2) of the Act was given to him of the making of award. On 15-4-2003 respondent made an application under section 18 to the Land Acquisition Officer for reference to the Court. The Land Acquisition Officer on the same date i,e, 15-4-2003 passed his order whereby he rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that it is badly time-barred. The impugned judgment shows that after rejecting the respondent's application for reference the Land Acquisition Officer sent his order to the learned District Judge, Nawabshah and it was treated as a reference under section 18 of the Act and was registered as Reference No,1 of 2003. It is stated that this Reference No,1 of 2003 was disposed of vide order, dated 8-11-2003 whereafter another reference was filed by the Executive District Officer which was registered as Reference No,2 of 2003 which too was disposed of as not pressed on 19-5-2004 and thereafter, another Reference No,1 of 2004 Was filed before the Court. The impugned order has been passed in the last mentioned reference.
3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and has contended that the judgment is altogether illegal inasmuch as there was no reference to the Court as the reference application stood rejected as time-barred.He has submitted that the Referee Court could not go behind the order of rejecting the reference application and treat it as a reference. In support of his submission he has relied upon the case of Ghulam Muhammad v.
4. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1967 SC 191; Col. Bashir Hussain v. Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore PLD 1970 Lah. 321; Haji Muhammad Yunus v. Land Acquisition Officer 2000 YLR 1185; A.K.
5. Subramania Chettiar v. Collector of Coimbatore AIR 1946 Mad. 184; The Collector, Mardan v. Ms. Taj Bibi PLD 1972 Pesh. 197; Province of Sindh v. Ramzan PLD 2004 SC 512; Gulzaman v. Collector, Land Acquisition PLD 1984 Pesh. 35; Bashir Ahmed v. The Collector, Multan PLD 1962 W.P. Lah. 292; Mahadeo Krishna Parkar v. Mamlatdar of Alibag AIR 1944 Bom. 200; Qamar-ul-Islam v. District and Sessions Judge PLD 2005 Kar. 591 and Land Acquisition Officer v. Caul Muhammad PLD 2005 SC 311.
6. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the respondent had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings nor notice of Award under section 12(2) of the Act was given to the respondent and, therefore, the respondent's application for reference will not be time- barred and that the Court was competent to initiate the reference and the impugned judgment is in accordance with law. In support of his submission he relied upon the case of Government of West Pakistan v. Arbab Haji Ahmed Ali Jan PLD 1981 SC 516; Shakir Ali Jafferi v. Land Acquisition Officer 1984 CLC 2353 and Government of Pakistan v. Mst. Asmatun Nisa PLD 1983 SC 109.
7. ' I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the record . It appears that the land was acquired by the Government for the purpose as noted above among which the respondent claims that his land was also acquired. Admittedly the notice under section 9 of the Act was not issued so also the notice under section 12(2) of the Act of making of a final Award was not given to the respondent. The respondent in his application has stated that he has learnt of the Award only on the date when he filed the application dated 15-4-2003 for reference.
8. The Deputy District Officer (R) Nawabshah on receipt of the application from the respondent passed his order on the very day i,e, 15-4-2003 by which the respondents' application was rejected as time-barred. Both the learned counsel before me have categorically admitted that the Deputy District Officer (R) Nawabshah, was the Land Acquisition Officer and competent to pass the order rejecting the reference application of the respondent. The order, dated 15-4-2003 shows that it was addressed to the respondent and its carbon copies were marked to Executive District Officer (R)
9. Nawabshah and to District Officer (R) Nawabshah for their information. The order dated 15-4-2003 does not show that its copy was sent to the District Judge, Nawabshah. The perusal of file of Reference No,1 of 2003 on the basis of which the reference proceedings were initially started by the District Judge, Nawabshah, shows that the original order of the Deputy District Officer (R)
10. Nawabshah, rejecting the reference application as time-barred was presented in Court which was admitted and registered as reference. The original order is addressed to the respondent and he seem to have filed the same in Court. By order dated 8-11-2003 this Reference was disposed of whereby the Executive District Officer (R) Nawabshah, was asked to make a reference of the respondent's land to the Court under section 18 of the Act within a month from the date of this order. As is apparent from the said order, an objection was taken by the District Attorney that there is no proper reference under section 18 of the Act and the Court is not competent to entertain the same. As it appears that the Executive District Officer (R) Nawabshah, filed reference dated 22-12- 2003, which was registered as Reference No,2 of 2003. In this reference a joint statement dated 19- 5-2004 was filed by the parties requesting for disposing of this reference on the ground that other reference on prescribed pro forma under section 18 of the Act has been received in Court. The Court accepted the statement and disposed of this reference also. Reference No,1 of 2004 which was titled as Abdul Ghafoor Khinchi v. Government of Sindh and others proceeded ex parte. Only at the stage of arguments the Government Pleader appeared.
11. ' The first question that needs consideration is whether there was at all reference in terms of section 18 of the Act before the Court. Section 18 of the Act provides for the manner in which the reference is to be made to the Court and it provides that any person interested who has not accepted the Award may by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by him for the determination of the Court. The reading of this provision makes it clear that it is on the written application of the interested person who has not accepted the award, the Collector is required to refer the matter for the determination of the Court. Thus, the reference has to be made by the Collector and not by any one else and that too on the application of the interested person.
12. Now, as it appears from the record that the respondent as an interested person did file an application on 15-4-2003 with the Deputy District Officer (R) Nawabshah, for making reference to the Court under section 18 of the Act. The Deputy District Officer (R) Nawabshah, by his order of 15- 4-2003 rejected the reference application of the respondent as hopelessly time-barred. No reference was made by him to the Court nor was there any occasion to do so as the reference application stood rejected. Having said that, what I find from the record is that the order rejecting the reference application of the respondent does not appear to have been sent by the Deputy District Officer (R) Nawabshah, to the Court but the respondent himself has filed such an order before the District Judge, Nawab Shah who has admitted the same as a reference under section 18 of the Act and thereafter, took further proceedings in it. In my view, order rejecting the reference application being filed by the respondent in Court could not be a reference under section 18 of the Act and the Court had nothing before it to undertake determination. In the case of Government of West Pakistan v. Arbab Haji Ahmed Ali Jan (supra) his Lordship Muhammad Haleem Acting C.J. Of the Supreme Court in delivering his opinion for the Full Bench made the following observation:-- "It is accordingly, in aid of this jurisdiction that the judicial power, which resides in it, is exerciseable for resolving the matters in controversy. Clearly, therefore, the extent of this jurisdiction is not the same as one conferred on a Court of general jurisdiction while hearing a suit under section 9, C.P.C.
13. It is only when a reference is made under section 18 that the designated Court is empowered to act and not otherwise."
14. 'I have already stated above that no reference whatsoever was made by the Deputy District Officer
(R) Nawabshah, to the Court under section 18 of the Act and that it was only the respondent who has submitted the order dated 15-4-2003 of the Deputy District Officer (R) Nawabshah, which exercise of the respondent was of no benefit to him and patently there was no reference to the Court under section 18 of the Act.
15. ' As the record shows that only after it was discovered by the Court that reference has not been properly made to it as required under section 18 of the Act, steps appear to have been taken to rectify such mistake by subsequently filing Reference No,2 of 2003 and then Reference No,1 of 2004.
16. The law does not provide for making of repeated references in respect of one of the same matter and this exercise also in my view was altogether illegal.
17. In the case of Province of Sindh v. Ramzan (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:-- "15. The next objection raised by the appellants was that of limitation. It may be pointed out at this juncture that so far as the filing of objection petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is concerned those are within time. The appellants have failed to prove that the landowners were present or represented before the Collector at the time when the Award was made. They have also failed to prove that a notice from the Collector under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued to the landowners. In the absence of proof of both, the limitation to file objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act would be six months."
18. ' In the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Government of West Pakistan (supra) similar view is also taken.
19. ' The respondent in his application under section 18 has stated that he has come to know about the award only on 15-4-2003 when the application was filed by him. This assertion on his part is not correct as in para. 8 of First Class Suit No,27 of 2003 which was filed by him in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, for declaration and injunction for the grant of compensation, he has himself claimed that he has been running from pillar to post since years for payment of compensation of the land. This in itself negates the fact that the respondent was not aware of passing of the award. Rather it shows that he was in knowledge of the award but he did not choose to make application for reference in time.
20. ' For the above reasons, I find that the learned District Judge, Nawabshah had no jurisdiction in the matter as no reference was made to it as required under section 18 of the Act and that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law.
21. 'By a short order, dated 1-9-2006 the appeal was allowed and the H impugned judgment was set aside. The above are the reasons for the said short order.