CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, C.J.---The petitioner has filed this petition seeking review of judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2016, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners, herein, has been dismissed.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners, herein, filed a reference application before the Collector , Mangla Dam Raising Project, on 06.05.2009 against award No, 43/2006 dated 26.11.2006. It was stated that their father purchased the land measuring 3 kanal 17 marla and 41/2 sarsahi, comprising Khewat No, 8 situate in Mozia Kunjri Mahal through sale-deed dated 19.02.1968 and mutation No, 221 was duly attested therein. The said land was acquired through the award (supra) and the compensation of the land to the extent of 1 kanal 16 marla and 1- 1/2 sarsahi was wrongly assessed in favour of the respondents. The matter was referred to the Reference Judge.
The learned Reference Judge, through judgment and decree dated 22.02.2010 dismissed the reference application being time barred. The petitioners filed an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed through judgment dated 12.02.2015. The appeal filed before this Court also failed on the ground that the reference application was hopelessly time barred, hence, this review petition has been filed.
3. Mr. Muhammad Younas Arvi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners after narration of necessary facts mostly stressed on two legal points. Firstly , that once the Collector Land Acquisition while treating the reference within limitation refers the same to the reference Judge, the reference Judge cannot reopen the matter of limitation and it will be deemed to have been filed within limitation. In support of his argument, he referred to the cases reported as Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province of Punjab and others [1992 CLC 1775 ], Government of West Pakistan and others v. Mst. Asmatun Nisa and others [PLD 1983 SC 109] and Government of West Pakistan v.
Arbab Haji Ahmed Jan and others [PLD 1981 SC 516]. Secondly , according to his version the judgment under review is based upon the judgment which is contrary to the case reported as Fazal Karim v. Azad Government and others reported in [PLD 1998 SC(AJ&K) 26], whereas, it is settled principle of law that the opinion of the bench of the same strength of the Judges in the subsequent judgment is not of binding natur e and only the larger bench can overrule the earlier judgment, therefore, it is the error and mistake apparent on the face of the record because this Court has decided the appeal on the strength of the opinion of the division bench expressed in subsequent judgments. He further argued that the reference was filed under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and there is no limitation for such reference. In this regard, he referred to the case reported as Ghulam Muhammad v.
Government of West Pakistan [PLD 1967 SC 191]. It is also an error apparent on the face of the record, hence, review is justified.
4. We have paid our utmost attention to the respective arguments of the learn ed counsel for the petitioners.
According to the admitted facts, after completion of the required proceedings, the Collector Land Acquisition issued the award on 26.11.2006. The petitioners-landowners received the compensation of the awarded land on 21.02.2007 and thereafter they filed the reference on 28.10.2008, almost after 20 months' period. The careful examination of the record as well as the reference application reveals that no reason and explanation for such delay has been brought on record rather it is simply mentioned that the reference is within time.
5. The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the reference is sent to the reference Judge by the Collector Land Acquisition, neither the objection of limitation can be raised before the reference Judge nor the reference Judge has jurisdiction to reopen and resolve the same. We are afraid that such argument has no legal substance as this point has already been resolved by this Court through the authoritative judgments referred to in the judgment sought for review , especially , the judgment reported as Government of Pakistan and another v.
Syed Ghulam Haider Shah and others [2007 SCR 175], wherein on this proposition after detailed survey of the judgments of the Courts of the sub-continent and also of the judgments relied upon and referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been held that:- "8. This is correct that some of the judgments including the judgment of this Court are to the effect that the Reference Court cannot dismiss the reference on the ground that it has been filed with the Collector after expiry of period provided by proviso to section 18. This is also correct that the Reference Court cannot sit over the findings of the Collector as a Court of appeal nor does the Reference Court sit as an ordinary Court of civil jurisdiction to entertain suits etc. but at the same time we are of the considered view that the Reference Court keeping in view the overall scheme of law relating to acquisition proceedings and the provisions of Chapter III read with section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act can adjudicate on the point of limitation and decide the same either way while examining as to whether the reference filed before it is a valid reference, one of the conditions of which is to find, as to whether the same has been filed within the period of limitation provided by proviso to section 18. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that all Courts have inherent jurisdiction and the Courts although possessed with limited jurisdiction to adjudicate only on points referred to them, cannot shut their eyes from considering the point whether they have jurisdiction or not.
9. The facts of this case are completely different to the facts of the cases which culminated into finding recorded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan or Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir . In the case before us the Collector Land Acquisition categorically held that the reference filed by the appellants is time barred and with this note/report forwarded the reference to the Referenc e Court which in turn dismissed the reference on the ground that it has been filed beyond limitation provided by proviso to section 18. Therefore, we hold that the reference filed by the Collector was rightly dismissed by the Reference Court which has the jurisdiction to consider whether a valid reference has been filed or not. The judgment of this Court reported as Fazal Karim v. Azad Government [PLD 1998 SC (AJ&K) 26] is overruled by holding that the designated Court has jurisdiction to determine as to whether the reference, filed before it is a valid reference or not and can dismiss the same on the ground that it has been filed with the Collector after expiry of the statutory period of limitation and as far the powers of the Collector are concerned, he cannot waive the objection in respect of limitation. The Court and Tribunal are bound to determine whether a valid application has been filed before them and whether they have jurisdiction to hear the lis."
The same view has been followed in Government of Pakistan and another v. Syed Ghulam Haider Shah and others (supra) and Azad Government and others v. Riaz Ahmed and another [2007 SCR 468], which are later in time to the judgment relied upon and referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. The other argument of the learned coun sel for the petitioners is that the principle of law laid down by this Court in the judgments (supra) being contrary to the principle of law laid down by the bench of equal strength in the judgment reported as Fazal Karim v. Azad Government and others PLD 1998 SC (AJ&K) 26 is not binding because only a larger bench can overrule the judgment of the smaller bench and not the bench of the Judges of the equal strength. Irrespective of the fact, whethe r the bench of the same strength can overrule the judgment of equal strength or not, in this case the position is quite different as if there are two conflicting views of equal benches then which one has to be followed? According to the settled principle of law, in case of two conflicting judgments the view later in time has to be followed. In this regard, reference may be made to the case reported as Gujarat Housing Board v . Nagajibhai Laxmanbhai and others [AIR 1986 Gujarat 81] wherein it has been held that: "12. In these circumstances we answer the reference by declaring that the person for whose benefit the land is acquired is an interested party and has every right to be added as a party-de fendant to the suit in order to effectually and completely decide the dispute in issue. We also declare that when there are two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court consistin g of equal number of Judges, the later of the two decisions should be followed by the High Courts and other Courts."
This principle has been consistently laid down in the cases reported as Vasant Tatoba Hargude and others v.
Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari [AIR 1980 Bombay 341], Govindanaik G. Kalaghatigi v. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. and others [AIR 1980 Karnataka 92], Gopal Krishna Indley v. 5th Additional District Judge and others [AIR 1981 Allahabad 300]. This principle has also been laid down in the judgment reported as Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik v. Shaukat Aziz and others [ 2007 CLC 1 192], as follows:.
"...It needs no reiteration that whatever there is any uncertainty or obscurity about a legal position qua any particular proposition, the view expressed by a Larger Bench prevails and when the learned Benches are of equal strength then the latest expression by the Bench holds the filed. Thus, to the present case the view expressed by the Larger Bench in lqbal Zafar Jhagra's case and the latest in Malik Umar Aslam's case is attracted."
Further reliance in this regard may be placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Riasat and others v. The Secretary of Education and others [1997 SCMR 1626 ], Mst. Hira Rehman v. Chancellor Government College and others [2011 CLC 377] and Javed lqbal v. Province of Sindh and others [2003 MLD 22]. According to these judgments, the principle and opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in the later judgment has to be followed, which has been rightly followed in this case, specially , when the later judgment is more authoritative, well-reasoned -and consistent with the statutory provisions as well as the principle of administration of justice.
7. So far as the case law referred to by the petitioners is concerned, as mentioned hereinabove all these cases have almost been considered in the case reported as Government of Pakistan and another v. Syed Ghulam Haider Shah and others (supra), hence, no separate discussion is needed.
8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reference has been filed under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hence, there is no limitation, is also baseless for the reason that for filing the reference there are different stages. According to the statutory provisions once the Collector Land Acquisition competently determines the shares of the landowners and the persons who are entitled for compensation, and the award is issued, thereafter the reference under section 30 is not competent. If at all for the sake of arguments, the reference is deemed competent even then it has to be filed within reasonable time and it is not the spirit of law that the same can be filed at ally time. This proposition came under consideration befor e this Court in the case reported as Muhammad Rasheed and 4 others v. Adalat Khan and 3 others [2016 SCR 1406], wherein after due deliberation on the point of limitation, it has been held as follows:-- "8. In the present case, the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6th September 2008 and the award was drawn on 13th May, 2009. The respondent filed the application under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to the Court before the Collector on 6th August, 2011, after a period of more than two years of issuance of the award. A perusal of the application moved to the Collector reveals that no reason has been assigned for moving the application at a belated stage. It is only stated in the application that apportionment has incorrectly been made in favour of defendants Nos,1 and 2. The houses were constructed by the father of the contestants. The conclusion drawn by the Reference Judge that the reference application has been filed at a belated stage is correct. There is no illegality in the judgment passed by the Reference Judge."
Whereas, relating to the competency of the reference under section 30, the principle enunciated in this judgment is reproduced as follows:-- "8. According to the spirit of the special law and nature of the acquisition proceedin gs, it is clear that the Legislature has intended to save the parties from unnecessary and lengthy process of litigation. The Collector is vested with the powers of summary enquiry and as far as possible he has to determine all the issues so that the land-owners may not suffer from the unnecessary agony of litigation, If the purpose of section 30 is deemed to be so wide that any person at any time can move to the Collector for reference: or the Collector is vested with the powers to re- open the matter once finalized under section 12 of Act, 1894, thus, it will amount to frustrate the very purpose of special law and also generate unnecessary litigation and make the matter more complex. Consequently , it will operate against the interest of land-owners to bear unnecessary costs and in some cases it may be so high that they will be practically deprived of their entitled compensation. It is also against the public interest to interpret the provisions of section 30 in the manner that after finalization of the award the interested person, who has failed to file reference under section 18, can as alternate apply for reference under section 30 or the Collector at any time can suo-motu reopen the issue and refer the matter to the Court."
In view of the above legal proposition already settled by this Court, the petitioners have failed to make out any valid ground justifying the admission of review petition, therefore, finding no force this review petition stands dismissed.