1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---This is an appeal to challenge the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellants to challenge the order passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition by which he held that an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was time-barred.
2. ' The admitted facts are that award was announced on 5th of June, 1991 but neither the present appellants were present nor were they ever informed through a notice that the award had been announced. The appellants came to know about the existence of the award and filed an application for obtaining certified copy, which was delivered to them on 12th of December, 1991. It is the case of the appellants that they filed application for obtaining a certified copy immediately after acquiring knowledge that the award had been announced. The High Court has held that appellants should have filed application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting the Collector to make a reference to the Court within six months from the date of award. It has been held that copy of the award was made available on 12th of December, 1991 while the application under section 18 was moved on 25th of December, which was beyond six months. The High Court has observed that no explanation whatsoever was given of the time consumed after receiving the certified copy. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows:-- "18.--(1) Any person interested who has not ..
(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, subsection (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire."
3. ' Raja Hassan Akhtar, the learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently contested the view adopted by the High Court and submitted that in the present case the appellants were not present before the Collector at the time when the award was made but no notice under section 12 was given to them and in these circumstances limitation shall run from the date of knowledge. He strongly relied on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another (AIR 1961 SC 1500), in which the Supreme Court of India while interpreting subsection (2) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act held that "the date of the award" used in proviso (b), reproduced above, must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. It was held that it was unreasonable to construe the words from the date of the Collector's award used in the aforesaid proviso in literal or mechanical way. It was argued by Raja Hassan Akhtar that the view of the Indian Supreme Court is the correct interpretation of law.
4. ' The learned Advocate-General, Ch. Muhammad Yusuf, who appeared for Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, supported the view taken by the High Court and relied on Mst. Sardar Begum v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore (PLD 1972 Lab. 458), in which a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court held that a person who was not present before the Collector could move an application within six weeks of the receipt of the notice or within six months from the date of the Collector's award whichever period expires earlier.
5. It was a legal requirement to serve a notice on the appellants under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is now well-settled that no adverse action can be taken against a person by keeping him in dark and in such situation in which a person is kept in dark about the proceeding or order limitation has to run from the date of knowledge. It has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Allandino v. Fakir Muhammad (PLD 1969 SC 582) that in a case where a litigant is kept in dark about the fate of his case it is wrong to say that for a remedial action against it, -at provided by law, time would start to run against him from the date of the order and not from the date when he comes to know about it. When this principle is kept in view there should be no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the view taken by the Supreme Court of India in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh's case, mentioned above, is the correct view. The facts of that case were identical to the facts of the present case. The appellant before the Indian Supreme Court filed his claim to compensation for the land acquired in accordance with section 9(2), and proceedings were held by the Deputy Land Acquisition Officer for determining the amount of compensation. In these proceedings an award was made, signed and filed in his office on March 25, 1951. No notice of this award was, however, given to the appellant as required by section 12(2) and it was only on or about January 13, 1953, that he received information about the making of the said award. The appellant, then filed an application on February 24, 1953, under section 18 requiring that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court as according to the appellant, the compensation amount determined in the proceedings was quite inadequate. In these proceedings as also in the appeal in the High Court it was held that the application filed by the appellant under section 18 of the Act was barred by time. In appeal to the Supreme Court the learned Judges examined some judgments of Indian High Courts and reached the following conclusion:- "... These decisions show that where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the Remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned. Therefore, we are satisfied that the High Court of Allahabad was in error in coming to the conclusion that the application made by the appellant in the present proceedings was barred under the proviso to section 18 of the Act."
6. In the present case the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was moved within a few days from the date of knowledge and was in no way barred by time. The Collector acted illegally by rejecting the application and his order must be quashed with a declaration that it was an order without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
7. ' The appeal is accepted and the order of the High Court is vacated. We order the acceptance of the writ petition filed by the appellants and, apart from making the declaration mentioned above, we direct the Collector to refer the matter for determination of the Court in accordance with law.