' ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.--- The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-12- 2012 passed by the learned Judge Referee Court/Additional District Judge-VI, D.I.Khan, whereby the objection petition of the appellant, namely, Janat Khan, filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the Award No,8 dated 8-10-2008 was dismissed being barred by time.
Being not satisfied with such findings of the learned Referee Court, the appellant has assailed the same through the instant appeal.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that some landed property of the appellant fully described in his objection petition was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector D.I.Khan for the construction of D.I.Khan Serai Gambila Project (N-55) NHA through Award No,8 announced on 8-10-2008 and determined the compensation at Rs,4000/- per kanal together with the other acquisition charges.
However, he was unhappy with such acquisition and determination of the market value of his acquired land and thus filed a reference before the learned Additional District Judge-VI/Referee Judge D.I.Khan. The learned Referee Judge after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties and hearing arguments came to the conclusion that the reference petition of the Objector was time-barred, because the award was announced on 8-10-2008 and the appellant was required to had filed the reference petition within six months which he had filed on 11-7-2009, i,e, after nine months of passing of the award. As such, by invoking the provisions of subsection (2), clause (b) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the reference petition was turned down on the ground of limitation alone. However, in the same breath, the learned Referee Judge found the price so determined of the acquired land of the appellant to be not in consonance with the market value in view of letter No,100/TLA(R)NHA dated 1-3-2007 issued by the District Officer (Revenue and Estate)
D.I.Khan vide which the property in question being barani agricultural in nature was valuing Rs,25,000/- per kanal. As such, the market value of the suit property was accordingly enhanced vide judgment and decree mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The claim of the appellant that the acquired land is commercial in nature is unimpressive and not proved from the record. The Revenue Record placed on file, during the trial, clearly reflects that the property in question is 'Barani in nature'. The attorney of the appellant (P.W.-3), while recording his statement before the trial Court showed his inability to produce any proof in support of his claim regarding commercial nature of the property. It is further evident from the record A that the acquired land is situated far away from the District Headquarter in a backward area, therefore, there is no probability that the same would be converted into the commercial property in the near future. The Local Commissioner, in compliance of the order of the court, visited the spot and has submitted a comprehensive report along with the site plan, from which it can be easily gathered that the property in question is `Barani Agricultural'. Thus the learned trial .Court has properly appreciated the material evidence while deciding the nature of the land and its potential value.
The learned trial Judge has rightly held that the acquired land is `13arani in nature' by enhancing its market value to Rs,25,000/- per kanal which is accordingly maintained.
5. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 provides three different types of limitations for filing a reference to the Collector; i,e, Firstly that if the person making a reference/application to the Collector was present or represented before the Collector at the time of announcement of Award, he is obliged to approach the Collector within six weeks from the date of the award announced by the Collector; Secondly, if the landowner was served by the Collector under section 12(2) of the Act ibid and he received the notice, then after receipt of the notice, he shall file the reference application with the Collector within six weeks and, Thirdly if the landowner was not present or not represented before the Collector at the time of announcement of the Award and was also not served with a notice under section 12(2) of the Act ibid, then the limitation for filing a reference before the Collector would be six months starting from the date of passing of the Award.
6. It is an admitted fact that the appellant or his representative was not present before the Collector at the time of announcement of the Award and the Collector has also not served him under the provisions of section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, thus the period of limitation for filing the reference before the Collector would be six months starting from the date of award.
The record shows that the land under reference was acquired through Award No,8 dated 8-10- 2008 while the appellant had filed the reference petition on 21-7-2009. The requirement of law is that if the landowners are aggrieved of the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector, they have to file objection petition under section 18 of the Act ibid, before the Collector, within a period of six months. The appellant filed reference before the Land Acquisition Collector D.I.Khan which was sent to the District Judge on 20-7-2009 but without raising any objection regarding limitation. It is a settled law that the designated court while exercising jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act cannot go beyond the reference made to it. The Referee Judge can determine the question only which was specifically referred to it by the Collector. In the instant case, the Collector has not referred the question of limitation to the Referee Judge, therefore, the learned Referee Court was not vested with the jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation, thus has wrongly dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case reported as Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad and others v. Muhammad Ishaq and others (PLD 2004 Azad J&K 22), wherein it has been held as follows:--- "In case reported as Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province of Punjab (1992 CLC 1775), the view taken by Supreme Court of Pakistan has been followed and it has been held that the Reference Court could not go behind the reference, it can only go into the question which was specifically referred to it the Collector. Thus it was observed that reference court had no jurisdiction to determine the question of limitation; such function was within the domain of Collector who had sent the reference. The findings of the Reference Court that reference was time-barred was set aside as being without jurisdiction".
6. Similar view was taken in the ease of Fazal Karim and 3 others v. Azad Government of the State Jammu and Kashmir Secretary Muzaffarabad and others (PLD 1998 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 26, wherein- it was held as under:- "In the case reported as Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province Of Punjab (1992 CLC 1775), the view taken by the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been followed and it has been held that the Reference Court could not go behind the reference, it can only go into the question which was specifically referred to it by the Collector. Titus, it was observed that Referee Court had no jurisdiction to determine the question of limitation; such function was within the domain of Collector who had sent the reference. The findings of the Reference Court that reference was time-barred was set aside as being without jurisdiction.
' It is evident from the authorities cited above that after the dictum of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the matter stands settled. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid authorities of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and hold that the High Court was not competent to go into the question of limitation and dismiss the appeals on the ground that the applications for making references to the Collector were time-barred".
6-A In another case reported as Muhammad Yousuf v. Collector Land Acquisition District Sikardu and 6 others (2007 CLC 1288), the Chief Court Northern Areas has held as under:- "We have received support and guidance from case-law of Superior Court in the matter. There is consensus of the opinion of higher judiciary in Pakistan that, the Referee Court has no jurisdiction to judge the competence of the reference on the point of limitation. The Collector has powers to refuse reference to the court if it is found that objections have been filed beyond time, prescribed under proviso to section 18 of the Act. Powers of Referee Court under the Act are limited to determination of (a) measurement of land, (b) amount of compensation and (c) persons entitled to compensation and its apportionment."
7. Reference in the above context may also be advantageously made to the case-law reported as
(i) PLD 1965 Karachi-573, (ii) 1984 KLR (Revenue cases) page 153, (iii) PLD 1965 Karachi 413, and (iv)
PLD-1972 Peshawar page 197.
8. As discussed above that limitation prescribed for filing of a reference under section 18 of the aforesaid Act is six months, but once an objection petition is referred by the Collector to the Referee Judge, then it cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation, as it is beyond the scope of the Referee Court. As such, the learned Referee Judge has fallen into an error by holding that the reference petition of the appellant was barred by time. In such circumstances, the learned Referee Judge had incorrectly invoked the relevant provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 while deciding the issue of limitation against the appellant. As such, the impugned judgment and decree on the point of limitation merits reversal which is accordingly set aside.
9. As a result, this appeal is partially accepted, the impugned judgment and decree on Issue No,3 (limitation) is set aside and the reference is held within time. The market value as assessed by the Referee Court at Rs,25,000/- per kanal along with the other acquisition charges shall remain intact.