FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J,-In the year 1960 certain agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 60/6-14 and 61/3-1 In Deh Phihai in Korangi, Taluka Karachi were acquired by the Government. The petitioners owned 0-8-41/5 shares in the said lands whereas the remaining 0-7-7-4/5 share was owned by evacuee Jhamaldas Jevat Ram which shares were allotted by the Custodian to the petitioners. It is alleged tout the aforesaid acquisition was without service of any notice of any kind whatsoever upon the petitioners so much so that the possession of the land was taken by the Government without the knowledge of tile petitioners and the award made ex parte without any notice to the petitioners. Admittedly the award was made on 17-12-1960 and the petitioners received compensation amounting to Rs. 22,187.81 on 17-8-1961, which was accepted under protest.
The petitioners go on to state that after obtaining the compensa--petition they filed objections dated 21-9-1961 but as no action was taken by the respondents, they sent reminder dated 3-10- 1955 which was passed on to the Mukhtiar kar, Karachi for report. No action was taken by the Mukhtiar kar until 16-4-1970 when he made his report in which he recommended higher rate of compensation for the lands acquired and a further compensa--petition of Rs. 5,000.00 for a well, and a farm house. The report according to the petitioners did not deal with other items of claim included in their aforesaid letters dated 21-9-1961 and 3-10-1965. Following the report the petitioners were heard by the Land Acquisition Officer who by his order dated 19-8-1970 only allowed claim relating to a well which was valued at Rs. 800. The petitioners accepted this sum under protest. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider other items of the claim nor made any reference under section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act to this Court for adjudication but kept on calling the petitioners for final decision. The petitioners got disgusted and made another application dated 17-9-1970 in which a request was made for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was not accepted by the respondent who informed the petitioners by his letter dated 1st May 1971 that the request for a reference under section 18 of the Act was time-barred. Another letter dated 6th May 1971 was addressed to the Collector of Karachi on behalf of the petitioners in which for the first time reference was made to the petitioners' letter dated 21st September 1961 and the request for reference to Court repeated. In reply to this letter the respondent by his letter dated 29th May 1971 requested the petitioners to supply a copy of the said letter dated 29-5-1961 as the same did not appear to have been received by his office. This request was immediately acceded to and the petitioners repeated their request for a reference under section 18 of the Act which, was rejected by the respondent by his letter dated 22nd July 1971 as being time-barred.
2. Though the petitioners have in their petition challenged the acquisition itself as being illegal and prayed for the restoration of the acquired land, Mr. Nathulal, the learned counsel for the petitioners before us has confined himself to the prayer for a direction on the respondent to make a reference to this Court in its original jurisdiction under section 19 of the said Act for adjudication of the claims of the petitioners with regard to the enhanced and additional compensation, which request, is said to contain in his clients aforesaid letters dated 21-9-1961 and 3-10-1965, and have been according to Mr. Nathulal Illegally turned down by the respondent by his impugned letters dated 1-5-1971 and 22-7-1971.
3. Under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act a request for reference to Court has to be made by the person interested, who has not accepted the Award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award, if such a person was present or represented before the Collector at the time of the making of the award, and in all other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under subsection (2) of section 12 of the making of the Award or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. In the present case it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners were present or represented before the Land Acquisi--petition Officer at the time of the making of the Award. The case of the respondent is that before any notice under subsection (2) of section 12 of the Act could be issued to the petitioners they presented themselves and received compensation money which was paid to them on 17th August 1961, and that the six weeks--- period of limitation would commence from 17th of August 1961 and in the present case the request for making a reference to Court was made to the respondent, long after the expiry of the period of limitation, on 17-9-1970. The petitioners' case is that such a request was contained in their letter dated 21-9-1961 which was delivered by hand in the office of the respondent on the same day. The respondent denies the receipt of this letter and in the alternative contends that it does not contain any such request. The question that has to be answered in this case is: when, if any, was the request made by the petitioners for a reference to Court under section 18 of the said Act? The learned Assistant Advocate-General on behalf' of the respondent denies the receipt of the letter dated 21-9-1961 and argued that the first communication received by the respondent from the petitioners, following the award was on 3-10- 1965 and even in this case no reference was made to the letter dated 21-9-1961 and that the reference to this letter was for the first time made in the petitioners' letter dated 6-5-1971. Mr. Nathulal on behalf of the petitioners relied on the signature in the peon Delivery Book in support of his contention that the letter dated 21-9-1961 was received by the respondent, which signature, he contended, though expressly pleaded in the petition, has not been denied by the respondent and the denial in the counter-affidavit is confined to want of knowledge of receipt of such a letter by the respondent. In this state of pleadings, it is, to my mind, reasonable to assume that the letter- dated 21-9-1961 was received by the respondent.
4. Faced with this situation, the learned Assistant Advocate-- General contended that even this letter did not contain any request for a reference to Court but only a prayer for revising the compensation awarded, which is, according to him, further borne out by the subsequent conduct of the petitioners who either kept quiet or were only interested in having the com--pensation raised by the respondent and In fact partly succeeded by receipt of a further sum of Rs.800 as mentioned above. Notwithstanding the subsequent conduct, the letter dated 21-9-1961 has to be examined to ascertain whether it in fact substantially complies with the requirements of section 18 of the said Act. The subject of the letter is expressly described as "Application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in connection with the acquisition of lands of Survey Nos. 59, 60 and 61 of Korangi." In the body of the letter a number of objections are raised relating to compensation awarded and persons entitled to the compensation and concludes with a prayer that that the respondent "be pleased to look into our said matter and justice be done." Now it is true that this letter does not in so many words make a request for a reference to Court However, it does expressly make a mention of section 18 and the subject of the letter itself is described as an application under section 18 of the Act. It is not possible to ignore the specific reference to section 18 and when this is read In conjunction with the concluding words of the letter referred to above, the letter on the whole can reasonably be said to contain a request under section 18 for a reference to civil Court. Law does no require reproduction of the language of section 18 but its substantial compliance and what has, therefore, to be seen is that there is in effect a request for a reference.
To my mind the letter does in effect seek reference to a civil Court. I am little hesitant to give a very strict and rigid construction to the said letter dated 21-9-1961 more so as it is addressed by a lay-- man. On the other hand the respondent could not be said to be ignorant of Its powers and duties under the said Act and in the presence of a specific mention of section 18 in the letter and by reason of the fact that in law the respondent becomes functus officio after the making of the award and the compensation thereafter could only be revised by a Court, the respondent should have reasonably construed the said letter as a request for a reference under section 18 as it is so capable of being read ; and if I am right in saying so, it must, as conceded to by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, follow that the applica--petition was within time and, therefore, the request contained therein should have been complied with by the respondent by appropriate action under section 19 of the said Act.
5. For reasons aforesaid I will allow this petition and direct the respondent to make a reference to appropriate Court under section 19 of the said Act. In the circumstances of the case, however, the petitioners will not be entitled to cost.
TUFAILALI A. RAHMAN, C. J.-I agree.
S. A. H.