' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the law had provided two period of limitations for filing of a reference petition against the award of Land Acquisition Collector if the expropriated landowners had not accepted the award; Firstly that if the landowners had participated in the acquisition proceedings, Reference has to be filed within six weeks of the passing of the Award. If the landowners had not participated in the land acquisition proceedings, then the expropriated landowners had to file application within six months from the date when the notice of the award is served upon them.
2. We have gone through the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and it transpires that no notice as envisaged under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been served on the petitioners. The persons who were served have been enumerated from Serial Nos.1 to 22 in the Award, and names of the petitioners do not figure in the Award. Thus, as the cardinal principle of law is that whenever an order is passed at the back of the party and without notice to him, then the mischief of limitation will not come in the way of the litigant.
3. In the instant case, as there is a legal question involved, we do not consider necessary to put the respondents on notice.
4. We have gone through the available record annexed with the petition. The Award was announced by the Ladd Acquisition Collector on 14-6-2008 and expropriated landowners filed reference petition on 1-11-2008. Calculating the period of limitation, the said reference petition was well within the period of limitation of six months from the date of announcement of the Award. It is also noted that by a very cursory and terse order, the learned Acquisition Collector/respondent No,9 has non-suited the petitioners and thus, deprived them of a very valuable right. For the sake of brevity, the order of learned Land Acquisition Collector is reproduced below:--- "Received after lapse of time of limitation of six weeks, hence dismissed as time-barred."
' This is not an order of a Judicial Officer. It does not show the applicability of the mind of a prudent Judicial Officer who is Judge between the acquiring Department of the Government and the expropriated landowners and the order is patently illegal and thus, liable to be struck down.
5. When an order is passed in ignorance of a party and without notice to him, the same is void ab initio and the mischief of limitation will not come in his way as held in the cases reproduced as Corporation of Calcutta v. A.C. Pal AIR 1931 Cal. Page 506 and Mst. Fatima Bibi v. Nur Muhammad Shah and others PLD 1951 Lah.
147.
6. The scheme of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shows that the Land Acquisition Collector is a Judge between the ex-proprietary landowners and the Government as well as the Acquiring Authority and he will have to act in a judicial manner strictly following the provisions contained in the Act (ibid). He must act within the four corners of his jurisdiction as conferred upon him by the provisions of said Act and the moment he skips over his power and travels beyond his jurisdiction, his order becomes corum non judice and is liable to be struck down.
7. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the lis i,e, the reference petition of the petitioner is sent back to the learned Acquisition Collector with the direction to refer the matter to the Court of competent jurisdiction for determination of the market value and ancillary matters as enunciated in the reference petition of the petitioner dated 1-11- 2008.