ALI BAIG, J.---The instant writ petition under Article 71(2) of Gilgit- Baltistan (Self-Governance and Empowerment) Order , 2009, has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 28.5.2018, passed by Collector Land Acquisition Skardu, whereby , the learned Collector dismissed the reference petition of the petitioners filed under Order XVIII read with section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 holding time barred.
2. Precisely facts giving rise to filing of the instant writ petition are that the respondents had acquired a piece of land owned by present petitioners situated at Dambo Dass Rondo District Skardu for construction of Civil Court Rondu, vide award No.Dk-4(1)/2017/award/08 dated 31st May , 2017.
3. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid award passed by the Collector Skardu, the petitioner had filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Collector Skardu for onward transmission to Referee Court. The learned Collector vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 has dismissed the reference petition of the petitioners holding that the reference petition of the petitioners is barred by time vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2018.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Collector , the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition before this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the Collector/respondent No.2 is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that no mandatory notices under Sections 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued and served upon the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners had no knowledge regarding passing of award, therefore, the petitioners had filed the reference petition before the Collector when they came to know regarding passing of impugned award, therefore, the reference petition was within time and the Collector has wrongly dismissed the reference petition of the petitioners holding it time barred.
6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that under proviso A & B of section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners can file reference petition/ objections to the award if the person making it was present or represented before Collector at the time when he make award within six weeks from the date of passing of Collector award and in other cases within six weeks of receive of notices from Collector under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act or within six months from the date of Collector award, which ever period shall first expire, but the petitioners have filed reference petition before Collector after lapse of more than one year of the passing of award, hence the petition filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is time barred.
7. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance we have gone through the record.
8. It is case of the petitioners that a piece of land owned by the petitioners was acquired by the respondents for construction of Civil Court at Dambo Dass Rondu District Skardu vide award dated 31.05.2017. Feeling discontent the petitioners had filed reference petition before Collector Land Acquisition Skardu under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for enhancement of compensation amount which was to be forwarded to the Referee Judge.
The learned Collector after scrutiny of the reference petition found the reference petition of the petitioners time barred and has dismissed the reference petition vide impugned order dated 28.05.2018.
9. Admittedly the period of limitation for filing of reference petition has been mentioned in section 18(2) of Land Acquisition Act. For ease and convenience, we would like to reproduce the relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act as under: "18. Reference to Court.---(1)-----
(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, which ever period shall first expire.
10. From plain reading of afore-mentioned provision of law, the petitioner if aggrieved from the measurement of acquired land, amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable may file reference petition before the Collector if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made award within six weeks from the date of Collector's award and in other cases within six weeks of receipt of notice from Collector or within six months from the date of Collector's award. But in the presen t case, the Collector has passed the award on 31.05.2017 and the petitioners have filed reference petition on 14.05.2018, after lapse of about one year of the passing of award by Collector Skardu, thus the reference petition of the petitioners hopelessly was time barred.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that the Collector . Land Acquisition has ample powers to examine/scrutiny of reference petition before forwarding the same to the Referee Court concerned. During examination of reference petition if the Collector finds the reference petition of the petitioners barred by time, he can dismiss the reference petition without forwarding the same to the Referee Court. From perusal of record, it transpires that the reference petition of the petitioners was hopelessly time barred, therefore, the learned Collector Land Acquisition Skardu has rightly dismissed the reference petition of petitioners vide impugned order dated 28.05.2018.
12. For the forgoing reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed being bereft of merits. This writ petition is disposed-of f accordingly . File.