'MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---These appeals are barred by 54 days. No sufficient cause is enunciated in the applications (CM . As . 910-L & 911-L/2014) seeking condonation of delay. However, it has been argued that the judgments under question are void and there is no period of limitation for challenging void judgments. In this context, it is argued that the respondents have received the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) without raising any protest and, therefore, per proviso 2 to Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), they are precluded and prevented from filing a reference under Section 18 of the Act. And as the reference filed was incompetent, resultantly the entire adjudication by the Court on such a reference and the decision rendered is a nullity in the eyes of law. It is also argued that the Courts below have not taken into account the entire material/evidence on the record to reach to a factual conclusion, which is thus based upon misreading and non-reading.
2. Heard. As far as the question of limitation is concerned, as has been argued by the learned counsel, the judgments under question (without conceding) may at the most be wrong and erroneous in law, but by no stretch of imagination they could be held void to claim exception to the limitation. Even otherwise per the settled law, the challenge to judgment/order cannot be left to absolute choice of an aggrieved person and/or that he would enjoy unlimited period to assail the same; rather the prescribed period of limitation ordinarily should commence from the date of knowledge of such judgment/order. There is no denying that the judgment pronounced was in the knowledge of the appellants, therefore, on this score too, the petition had to be filed within a period of limitation received the amount of compensation without protest and thus were barred to make an application under section 18 of the Act (as per proviso 2 to section 31(2) of the Act) suffice to state that this point was not agitated either before the Trial Court or the Appellate Court. The factum of receipt of compensation without protest was required to be urged and established but this was not done nor was the said proviso specifically pleaded. Under such circumstances, when there are two concurrent findings of fact and law, it would not be appropriate to permit the appellants to agitate the same before this Court.
4. As far as the argument that the Courts below have ignored/overlooked/misread the evidence, we have not been persuaded to agree thereto, because the learned Trial Court has duly considered the evidence and even the learned High Court has made reference to specific portions of the evidence, which are admissions by the appellants side about the location of the property, the surroundings, the market value, the nature etc. And qua other relevant factors which are relevant for determining and for the fixation of the market price under the acquisition laws and the criteria laid down by this Court in considerable pronouncements. And the learned ASC has not been able to show to us that the judgment of the learned High is founded on misreading/non- reading of evidence in this regard. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed accordingly.
High Court Judgment Upheld/Appeal by Punjab Province Dismissed.