1. GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J. --- The supra-titled appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court dated 20.10.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 48/2008, by our leave.
2. 2.The precise -facts forming background of the captioned appeal are that the land comprising khasra No. 855, measuring 2 kanals, situate in village Pallandari, was acquired by the Government, vide award No. 10/2006, drawn on 11.3.2006. The Collector Land Acquisition determined the compensation of the acquired land to the tune of Rs. 2,93,388/- plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges. The appellants, herein, felt aggrieved from determination of the compensation and filed a reference before the District/Reference Judge Pallandari claiming therein that the market value of the land is more than Rs. 100,000/- per marla but the compensation has been determined, by the Collector Land Acquisition without having regard to the market, commercial and potential value of the land. The reference was contested by the respondents, herein. The learned Trial Court framed issues in the light of respective pleadings of the parties and provided them an opportunity to lead the evidence in support of their respective claim. At the conclusion of the proceedings, vide judgment and decree dated 29.2.2008, the reference was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment dated 29.2.2008, the appellants, herein, filed an appeal before the High Court on 5.4.2008.
3. After hearing the parties, the learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 20.10.2015, dismissed the appeal.
4. 3.Mr. Raza Ali Khan, the learned Advocate-General, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the reference, while submitting that the same was filed by the appellants, herein, directly before the District/Reference Judge, hence the same was not entertainable. He contended that all the proceedings conducted in the reference were without jurisdiction and coram-non- judice, hence the appeal has rightly been dismissed by the High Court.
5. 4.Mr. Asghar Ali. Malik, advocate, appearing for the appellants,. herein, while responding to the preliminary objection, vehemently argued that as the Collector was absent on 20.6.2006, the date on which the reference was filed before the District/Reference Judge, however, the same was subsequently sent by the District/Reference Judge himself to the Collector, hence the illegality, if any, stood cured. The learned advocate on merits of the case submitted that the acquired land is located in .the city and is of commercial nature. The Collector Land Acquisition has arbitrarily determined the compensation without taking into consideration the commercial value and location of the land. The learned advocate argued that the potential value of the land has also not been considered by the Collector. The learned advocate submitted that the High Court has illegally dismissed the appeal on the ground that the reference was not properly constituted and was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as is visualized by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
6. 5.The learned Advocate-General while controverting the arguments of the advocate for the appellants on merits, submitted that the compensation of the land has been properly assessed by the Collector. Moreover, the reference was not properly constituted, even the same was time- barred. The findings returned by the learned District/Reference Judge as well as the learned High Court are unexceptional and hardly require any interference, submitted the learned Advocate- General.
7. 6.We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. 7.Firstly; we would like to attend the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the reference filed before the District Judge Sudhenuti. A perusal of the record reveals that the reference was filed before the District Judge directly on 20.6.2006. The Reader of the Court put up a note on the reference that the same has not been filed properly through Collector Land Acquisition but despite that the learned District Judge issued notices to the other side and fixed the case on 24.7.2006 for objections. The respondents, herein, filed objections on 16.9.2006 and the issues were framed by the learned District Judge on 21.11.2006. At the conclusion of the proceedings, vide judgment dated 29.9.2008, the learned District Judge has dismissed the reference. After hearing the advocates representing the parties, we are of the considered view that the reference was not entertainable directly by the District Judge in violation of the mandatory procedure provided by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 18 provides a special mode for making reference application and the District Judge may entertain it, if the conditions prescribed by Section 18 of the Act, have been complied with. A perusal of Section 18 reveals that (i) there should be a written application to the Collector, (ii) it should be moved, by a person interested or claiming to be interested; (iii) it must state objections as to measurement of land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: and (iv) the same should be made within the period of limitation prescribed by the proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These formalities, in our view, are the 'matters of substance and their compliance is essential for assuming the jurisdiction.
9. The District Judge has no original jurisdiction for hearing a reference and is a persona designate who can assume the jurisdiction only when a properly constituted reference is sent to it by the Collector, after preparing the statement as visualized by Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. which is missing in the case in hand.
10. 8.By now the law is well-settled that if a mandatory condition for exercising the jurisdiction by a Court, Tribunal or authority is not fulfilled, then the entire proceedings, which follow, will become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction. Any order passed in continuation of these proceedings and the appeal or revision wherefrom, shall equally suffer from illegality and without jurisdiction, as has been observed in Rashid Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 271]. It is also a universally recognized principle of law that if an Act or rule prescribes a particular mode for performance of an act, the act should be performed according to that mode alone or not at all. A reference may be made to the judgment recorded in Reference No. 1 of 1977, by the President, Azad Jammu & Kashmir, reported as [PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 37] and Muhammad Vounas Tahir & another v. Shaukat Aziz, Advocate, Muzaffarabad & others [2012 SCR 213]. In The former.case, it was observed by this Court as under:--- "This is an elementary principle that if an Act or Rule prescribes a particular method of performance of an act the act should be performed according to that method alone or not at all...."
11. In Muhammad Younas Tahir's case (supra), it has been observed by this Court as under:-- "26. It is, celebrated principle of law that when a particular method for performance of an act is prescribed under an Act or Rules, then such act must be performed according to that particular method or not at all as has been laid down in the case titled Habibullah v. D.I.G. Police & 3 others [2004 SCR 378]. The relevant observation is reproduced as under:--- "...It is settled proposition of law that when a particular method of performance of an act is prescribed under an Act or Rule then such act must be performed according to the prescribed method alone or not at all."
12. In another case titled Government of the Punjab, Food Department through Secretary Food & another v. Messrs United Sugar Mills Ltd. and another [2008 SCM R 1148], it was observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:-- "...lt is also settled proposition of law that if law has provided to a particular act in a particular manner the same is to be done in that particular manner or not."
13. Similarly in a case titled Raja Harnayun Sarfraz Khan and others v. Noor Muhammad [2007 SCM R 307], it was observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as under.--- way and not otherwise as the law laid down by this Court in Atta Muhammad Qureshi's case PLD 1971 SC 61."
14. 9.So far as the contention of Mr. Asghar Ali Malik, advocate, appearing for the appellants, that the District Judge has himself sent the reference to the Collector Land Acquisition, as is evident from the note of the Reader of the Collector on the reference, thus the- irregularity, if any, was cured, is concerned, that is devoid of any force. It appears that this note has been procured subsequently in order to get rid of the legal consequences of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. The District Judge has also opined to the same effect. This is a clear-cut fraud.
15. 10.The contention of the learned advocate for the appellants that the Collector was not present on the relevant date, has also no substance in it. The reference application can be filed in the office and subsequently the Collector has to prepare the statement under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act and send the reference to the District/Reference Judge for further proceedings. The filing of reference application firstly before the Collector is a statutory requirement having a purpose behind it because before making the reference, the Collector has to decide on the material before him, as to whether he should refer the matter or not.
16. In view of the above discussion, we have reached the conclusion that the assumption of jurisdiction by the District Judge on the reference directly, without intervention of the Collector Land Acquisition, is without lawful authority and coram-non-judice. All the proceedings conducted by him are also of no legal effect. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The reference filed before the District Judge stands dismissed.