' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J. --- This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 10.03.2014, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the landed property of the appellants, herein, comprising survey Nos. 7, 8 and 9, situate at village Chak Haryam, Tehsil and District Mirpur was acquired by the Collector Land Acquisition, Mirpur vide award No, 118 of 2007, on 10.09.2007, for Mangla Darn Upraising Project. Feeling aggrieved from the compensation assessed by the Collector and proper measurement of the landed property, the appellants, herein, filed reference application on 22.07.2008. It was averred in the reference application that the appellants are residing abroad and without summoning and hearing the appellants, the Collector Land Acquisition announced the award on the basis of incorrect revenue 'record as the appellants are the owners of 30 kanals and 3 marlas land, whereas, in the revenue record the land of the appellants has been entered and shown as 28 kanals, 2 marlas. Moreover, the market, value of the land has also not properly been assessed by the Collector, Land Acquisition. The learned Reference Judge after necessary proceedings, dismissed the reference filed by the appellants on the point of limitation vide its judgment and decree dated. 22.06.2009. The appellants challenged the judgment and decree of the Reference Judge before the High Court by way of appeal which was also dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2014. Hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Arshad Mahmood Malik, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the judgment of the High Court is against law and the facts of the case which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He contended that the learned High Court failed to understand the real controversy involved in the case. He added that admittedly no notices under Sections 9 and 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were served upon the appellants while acquiring the land of the appellants. In this way, the award Was issued while violating the relevant provisions of law.. He further added that the appellants immediately after acquiring the knowledge of the announcement of award filed reference application, therefore, the same was well within time The Courts below without adhering to the fact that the appellants were residing- abroad when acquisition process was conducted, dismissed the reference application on the ground of limitation. It is settled principle of law that the limitation _start running from the date of knowledge, but the Courts below failed to adhere to the same while passing the impugned judgments.
4. On the other hand, 'Haji Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. He submitted that the judgment of the High Court is perfect and legal which does not warrant any interference by this Court. He added that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below which cannot be disturbed as the appellants failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence. He contended that the findings recorded by the learned High Court while interpreting Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are well-reasoned. He added that the Land Acquisition Act is a special law and two provisions in the Act regarding limitation have been provided for filing the reference. If the land owner whose land has been acquired was present before the Collector at the time of announcement of award, then he has to file the reference within a period of six weeks from the date of announcement of award and in other cases within six months' period from the date of announcement of award by the Collector which-ever period shall expire firstly. He strongly argued that Section 20 of the Limitation Act, 1908 provides the mechanism for dealing with the subject of limitation provided in special laws, It is settled principle of interpretation of statute that the provisions of special statutes have overriding effect over the provisions of general law unless provided contrary. He forcefully contended that no evidence brought on record by the appellants that they were abroad at the time of announcement of award.
In continuation of the arguments, he submitted that the appellants personally received the compensation amount on 11.05.2008 and 14.05.2008, whereas, the reference was filed on 22.07.2008 after 69/72 days, from the date of knowledge and after 10 months from the date of announcement of award. In this the reference application has been filed after the bed period of limitation. He lastly submitted that the person who is not vigilant about his right is not entitled to get any discretionary relief as the law does not favour the indolent.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record alongwith the impugned judgment. In the instant appeal, the only question; whether, the reference application filed by the appellants was rightly dismissed by the Courts below on the ground of limitation, requires consideration by this Court. The case of the appellants is that at the time of announcement of award they were abroad and they came to know about the announcement of award on 11.05.2008 and they received the compensation thereafter under protest. The reference application filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Reference Judge on the point of limitation and the learned High Court also affirmed the view expressed by the Trial Court. It is spelt out from the record that award was announced on 10.09.2007, whereas, the appellants received the compensation amount on two different dates i.e,, 11.05.2008 and 14.05.2008.
They moved the reference application on 22.07.2008. In the reference application, the appellants took the specific plea regarding non-filing of the reference application within prescribed period of limitation. It will be useful to reproduce here the relevant portion of the reference application which reads as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' To verify the above-referred plea taken by the appellants-land owners that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served upon them, we have gone through the record. After perusing the whole record minutely, we failed to find out any document from which it could be ascertained that any serious effort was made by the Collector to serve the notices upon the appellants. It will be useful to reproduce here Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which reads as under:--- "12. Award of Collector when to be final.-- (1) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2)The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made."
' According to the provisions of Section 12(2), Land Acquisition Act, reproduce hereinabove, it was enjoyed upon the Collector to issue notice immediately to the land owners regarding the issuance of award. From the bare reading of the award, it reveals that the notices were not issued to the appellants. In such-like situation, Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act provides the mechanism for filing reference application. For better appreciation Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is reproduced here which reads as under:-- "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 apportionment of the compensation among the persons 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, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
(3)The Collector shall forward a reference to the Court within a period of 30 days from receipt of the application under sub-section (1) unless the Collector rejects the application within afore-said period on any of the grounds provided by the Act."
' From the combined reading of the provisions of both the sections, reproduce hereinabove, it reveals that when service is not effected upon the person interested, then the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge. The same proposition as involved in this case, came under consideration of this Court in a case reported as Azad Government of the Stale of Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique Khan & 9 others 2009 SCR 320], wherein this Court observed as under:-- "Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that if a person is not present at the time of announcing the award a notice shall be issued to him. If no notice is issued to affected person then, how the limitation start from the date of award, the time shall start running against him from the date of knowledge."
' Similarly, in another case reported as WAPDA through Chief Engineer, Man gla Dam Rasing Project, WAPDA, Mangla and another v. Sardar Asif Ayub Khan and another [2013 SCR 673] this Court observed as under:-- '8. For determining the question that on which date Sardar Asif Ayub Khan, appellant, acquired knowledge of the award, we have perused the record with utmost care. In para 6 of the reference application he has not alleged the specific date as to when he acquired knowledge of award. He has only averred that he came back from abroad only a few days ago. Alongwith the reference application, he appended a certified copy of award obtained by him. A perusal of the same shows that he applied for obtaining copy of award on 18th October, 2006. The copy was issued to him on the same day. The award was issued on 12th August, 2006. Assuming for the sake of arguments that he acquired knowledge of award on 18th October, 2006 and he moved application on the same day for obtaining the copy, which was issued to him on the same day and 18th October, 2006 is presumed to be the date of his knowledge, then too he was entitled to file reference within six months under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, upto 18th April, 2007. The reference has been filed within the period of limitation."
6. Although, the learned High Court while interpreting Section 12(2) or the Land Acquisition Act referred to the judgment of this Court titled Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique Khan & 9 others [2009 SCR 320] reproduce hereinabove, however, we do not convince with the findings recorded by the High Court on the strength of supra judgment. In the case in hand, nothing has come on the record that the plea taken by the appellants is without substance that at the time when the proceedings of award were conducted, the appellants were within the country. Moreover, it is also spelt out from the record that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellants. In this state of affairs, the limitation shall start running from the date of knowledge. Thus, keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Reference Judge as well as the learned High Court failed to adhere to law on the subject while passing the impugned judgments.
' In the light of above discussion, this appeal is accepted and the judgments of the Courts below are hereby set aside. Consequently, the case is remanded and the Reference Judge is directed to entertain the reference application while treating it within limitation and decide the same on merits. No order as to costs.