' MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J.--- Through the instant Constitutional Petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 21st December, 2010, passed by District Collector Gwadar, whereby reference/application filed by the petitioners was rejected. The petitioners have sought following relief:- "It is, therefore, prayed that the order passed by respondent No,1 on 21-12-2010 may be declared as illegal and without jurisdiction and by setting aside the same, directions may be issued to respondent No,1 for referring the objections of petitioners to District Court, Gwadar for deciding the same on merits in accordance to law."
2. Facts of the case are that the Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence Islamabad in the years 2006 and 2007 acquired 9270 acres and 4300 acres land situated at Mouza Gurandani Shumali, Darbela Janubi, Ziarat Machi and Surbendar of Tehsil and District, Gwadar for the purpose of Joint Defence Complex. After adopting all the legal codal formalities, compensation was disbursed amongst the land owners including petitioners. After the acquisition process, mutation entries were recorded in favour of the respondent No,2 on 15th May, 2008 and the possession of land was also handed over. During the process of acquisition, the petitioners had not raised any objection, however on 31st March 2010 filed a reference before respondent No,1 i.e, Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gwadar, which was rejected on 21st December, 2010. The relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below:--- "I have perused the record and considered the contentions put forth by the counsel and revenue officials. Since the application is time barred and the applicants have received the compensation money without any objection at the time of receiving cheques so the application is not maintainable under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and is accordingly rejected."
3. The petitioners through the instant petition have challenged the aforesaid orders.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had objection regarding the settlement carried out in the District by the revenue staff, wherein several irregularities had been committed; that acquisition procedure had not been adopted according to law and publication was not made in the newspaper widely circulated in the Gwadar and other part of Balochistan and Karachi nor necessary measures had been taken to bring notice within the knowledge of the land owners regarding acquisition of land; that several land owners had expired prior to settlement proceedings, but their legal heirs were not brought on record nor entries in the revenue record were made accordingly. The market value of the acquired land had not been assessed according to law which at the relevant time was more than 40 lacs per acre; that respondent No,1 has got no jurisdiction to reject the reference as under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter the "Act 1894"), he was under obligation to refer the reference to the District Judge for adjudication, but he himself exercised the authority not vested in him.
' As against this, the learned counsel for respondent No,3 stated that petitioners had received full and final payment in satisfaction of the award without any objection; that respondent No,1 rejected the reference filed under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act as being barred by time; that proceedings for acquisition of the land were made for establishment of the New Gawadar International Airport and establishment of the Joint Defence Complex (Gwadar Cantonment) with due process of law under the Act, 1894 and published notification under sections 4, 6 and 7, as such, the constitutional petition is not maintainable.
5. The learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent No,2 contended that the process in respect of the award had already been completed in accordance with law in the year 2008 and after passing award and till handing over the possession of the property, no objection whatsoever were raised by the petitioners; that proceeding in respect of reference initiated by the petitioners were hopelessly time-barred.
6. The learned Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the respondent No,1 stated that instant constitutional petition is not competent against order passed by Deputy Commissioner/Collector within the view of section 18 of Act, 1894; that after the acquisition process, the mutation entries in the name of respondent No,2 were made out on 15th August, 2008 and possession of land was also handed over to the respondent No,2. The petitioner No,1 had received their due compensation and no objection whatsoever was raised; that petitioners have no locus standi to file the instant petition as law does not permit them to invoke the controversial matter in a constitutional petition.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended along with petition. The petitioners in their reference/objection under Section 18 of Act, 1894 filed before respondent No,1 have challenged the operation of settlement of the area and the irregularities thereto, whereas admittedly they have received their due compensation and accepted the award, however, after the award, section 18 of the Act, 1894 provides a remedy of reference, which is reproduced herein below:--- "18. Reference to Court.--- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, ' require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the Compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the appointment of the compensation among the person interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made:---
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) In other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, subsection (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award whichever, period shall first expire.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 21, the Provincial Government may, if it has not accepted the award, refer the matter to the Court within a period of six months from the date of announcement of the award; provided the Court shall not entertain the reference unless in its opinion there is a prima facie case for inquiry into and determination of the objection against the award.
8. It is obvious that an aggrieved person can file a reference in view of the aforesaid provision of law, which is confined to the grievances mentioned therein. The petitioners through the reference had challenged the operation of settlement carried out in the year of 20062007, for which the reference authority as per section 18 of the Act had no jurisdiction.
9. The petitioners pursuant to award had received respective compensation and during the process of acquisition proceedings, they have raised no objection. It is noted that Government of Pakistan (respondent No,2) in the year 2006-2007 had acquired 9270-000 acres and 4300-0-39 acres land in Mouza Gorandani Shomali, Gorandani Junobi, Ziarat Machi Sharki and Surbandar Tehsil Gwadar, after fulfilment of all formalities as laid down in the Act, 1894. The petitioners had filed reference in the year 2010 without mentioning the date of reference, however the respondent No,1 vide order dated 21st December, 2010 rejected the reference on the point of limitation. It is also evident that the petitioners along with the reference had not filed any separate application for condonation of period of limitation. It is a settled principle of law that one must submit an application for the condonation of period of limitation and if any pleading has been submitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation that cannot be entertained. So far as the question of reference is concerned, section 18 of the Act, 1894 provides three different types of limitation for filing a reference. Firstly, if the person makes reference/objection to the Collector, presents/represents before the Collector at the time of announcement of an award, he/she is obliged to file the application to the Collector within six weeks from the date of award announced by the Collector. Secondly, if the landlord was served by the Collector under section 12(2) of the Act, where he reached notice then after receipt of notice. Thirdly, if the time of announcement of the award he was not served with notice under section 12(2), then under the law he is required to file the reference within six months.
10. The record shows that the land in the reference was acquired through award dated 26th February, 2008. The petitioners were well aware about the award and they have received due compensation without raising any objection. Had they been aggrieved of award, they would have/had filed a reference within a period as mentioned hereinabove.
11. The contention of the learned counsel that the respondent No, 1/Collector was not competent to reject the reference on the point of limitation is not tenable as the respondent No,1 Collector Gwadar under the law was competent to reject the reference if the same is beyond the limitation.
In case reported in 2007 CLC 1288, the time-barred reference was not considered and in the case of Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur and others (1992 CLC 1775), it was held as under:- "It is a settled principle of law that the Court cannot go behind the Reference and possess jurisdiction to determine only such questions as are referred to it specifically. The designated/ Reference Court has no jurisdiction to determine question of limitation. This function is within the sole domain of the Collector who sends reference under section 18 of the Act. Reference be made to Government of West Pakistan (Now Government N. -W.F.P.) through Collector Peshawar v. Arbab Haji Ahmad Ali Jan and others PLD 1981 SC 516 and Government of West Pakistan (N.-W.F.P.) and 2 others v. Mst. Asmatun Nisa and 6 other PLD 1983 SC 109."
' Thus, in view of above, C.P. No,70 of 2011 has no force, which ID is dismissed accordingly.