' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Mrs. Abida Kalsoom, appellant herein, has filed this Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 14-12-2005 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/ Judge Land Acquisition D.I. Khan, whereby her reference petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation by invoking the provisions of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
2. Facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant had filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Land Acquisition Collector D.I. Khan for sending the same to the Court of learned District Judge/Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan for redetermination of compensation of her land acquired for the construction of Drains Nos.10 and 11 C.R.B.C. Stage-II, WAPDA D.I. Khan. The respondents after service filed replication to the reference where besides other objections, the ground of limitation was also raised. Another application on the same ground was also filed by the respondents under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the reference to be hopelessly time-barred. After hearing arguments thereon pro and contra, the learned Senior Civil Judge in his capacity as Judge Land Acquisition D.I. Khan accepted the application and rejected the reference petition. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently criticized the impugned judgment of the learned Judge Land Acquisition D.I. Khan on the ground that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the reference petition of the appellant could not be dismissed on the sole ground of limitation. Reliance in this respect was placed on the judgments reported as Mumrez Khan and 16 others v. Federal Government through Collector and 4 others PLD 2004 Pesh. 106.
4. It was also argued that the learned Referee Court could not dismiss the reference petition without framing issues and affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence as, even if the ground of limitation is raised, that has to be threshed out and determined by the learned Referee Court through evidence and scanning of the record.
4-A. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the reference petition was time-barred, in view of the provisions contained in section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which prescribes the period of limitation of six weeks from the date of award if the expropriated landowners have participated in the land acquisition proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector and in other cases six months from the date of award. It was also argued that the reference having not been filed within the period of limitation, the learned Referee Court has rightly rejected the reference petition under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
5. I have gone through the record of the case and considered the argument of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The land of the appellant was acquired by the Government of N.-W.F.P. For construction of drain and in this respect, the Land Acquisition Collector announced the impugned Award, which was not accepted by the appellant and submitted a Reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector after scrutinizing the Reference sent the same to the Referee Court for determination of the quantum of compensation.
7. This is about half a century old proposition that once a matter is referred to the Civil Court by the Collector, then the learned Referee Court is bereft of jurisdiction to determine the question of limitation as held in the cases reported as Government of West Pakistan (Now Government of N.- W.F.P.1 through Collector Peshawar v. Arbab Haji Ahmad Ali Jan and others PLD 1981 SC 516 "E", Government of West Pakistan (Now Government of N.-W.F.P.) and 2 others v. Mst. Asmatun Nisa and 6 others PLD 1983 SC 109, Shah Wazir Khali and others v. Abdur Razaq and others PLD 2004 Pesh. 109 and The Collector Mardan and 2 others v. Mst. Taj Bibi and 14 others PLD 1972 Pesh. 197.
8. Consequently, this appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 14-12-2005 is set aside and the reference is sent back to the learned District Judge, D.I.
Khan either to decide the same himself or to entrust it to an Additional District Judge at D.I. Khan for disposal. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge D.I. Khan on 12-5- 2008.