1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench) dated 29-3-1982 in R. F. A. No. 51/1981/BWP.
2. The relevant facts are that the Collector of Bahawalpur took proceedings for the acquisition, inter alia, of 16 kanals of land belonging to respondent No. 1 in connection with the construction of a wool factory for the benefit of the petitioner. The necessary notifications under sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act were published between September, 1969 and October, 1971 and the market value of the land was assessed at Rs. 8,000 per acre along-with compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15 % and compound interest at the rate of 8 %. On 26-8-1974, respondent No. 1 moved an application before the Collector under section 18 of the Act, requesting that a reference; be made to the civil Court. The matter was thereupon referred by the Collector to the Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, who, vide his judgment dated 21-6-1980, assessed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 80,000 per acre and also allowed compound interest at the rate of 8 % from 1-1-1969(the date of the petitioner's possession).
3. The petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, namely, R. F.
4. A. No: 51/1981/BWP on 26-10-1981, which was dismissed in 11mine by a Division Bench on 29-3-1982 on the ground that appeal was barred by limitation. It was held that Article 156 of the Limitation Act applied to an appeal preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment of the reference Court (Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur) to the High Court. According to the said Article the period of limitation was 190 days from the date of the decree or order appealed from. In this case, the date of the decree appealed from being 21-6-1980, the appeal, which was filed on 25-10-1981, was hopelessly barred by time.
5. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, in support of this petition has contended that no period of limitation is provided for appeals preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment of a reference Court. Hence the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the High Court on the ground of limitation was untenable.
6. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is in following terms :-.
7. "Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1968, applicable to appeals from original decrees and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid, an appeal shall lie to the Judicial Board subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereof."
8. The argument pressed before us is that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have been incorporated. In respect of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act only to a limited extent, which is evident from the words "not-with Standing anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time- being in force" occurring in section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, appeals to the High Court under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act are not regulated by the Code of the Civil Procedure, to which Article 156 of the Limitation Act can be made applicable.
9. We do not think that the provisions of the Limitation Act, which are relatable to the Civil Procedure Code stand excluded by this non obstate clause. It is only those provisions in the Civil Procedure Code or any other enactment which are inconsistent with any provisions of the Land Acquisition Act that will stand displaced on account of the above nonobstante clause, but the remaining provisions will continue to apply. For instance, not withstanding any provision in any other enactment, in view of the express stipulation in section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act an appeal from an award of a reference Court shall lie to the High Court irrespective of the value of the appeal but other provisions dealing with the period in which such appeals shall be filed, etc. There being no provision in the Land Acquisi--petition Act in this respect to the contrary will continue to apply. As no provision was brought to our notice which excludes the application of the Limitation Act to such appeals we are inclined to agree with the High Court that the provisions of Article 156 of the Limitation Act would apply to appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.
10. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.