The above-captioned two appeals raise an identical question of facts and law, as such, are disposed of by this common order.
2. Appeal No.7/93 relates to land measuring 50 Kanals 3 Marlas comprising Survey Nos. 1223, 1225 and 1222, situate in village Mandi, Tehsil Kotli, while Appeal No.8/93 relates to land measuring 50 Kanals, 3 Marlas, comprising Survery -Nos. 1223-min and 1224, situate in village Mandi, Tehsil Kotli.
The above two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed separately in two references submitted to the District Judge, Kotli, by the Collector Land Acquisition, on March 16, 1988, which were dismissed by separate orders, on January 30, 1993.
3. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that the petitioners-appellants filed two references before the Collector Land Acquisition, to the effect that land mentioned in the references, was owned by them which was acquired by the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and an award was made by the Collector, Land Acquisition. It was claimed that the petitioner appellants were in possession of the land as owners, as such, were entitled to receive its compensation amount. The entry of respondents Nos.2 to 10 to receive the compensation amount as its owners, is illegal and inoperative against the rights of the petitioner-appellants. The award was also challenged on the .Ground that less compensation of the land was determined in view of its prevalent market value. The learned District Judge after framing necessary issues, receiving evidence from the respective parties and hearing them, dismissed these references, on the ground of same being filed after the expiry of period of limitation and on merits as well. Hence these appeals.
4. Kh. Abdul Basit, the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following points in support of his appeals:--
(i) That no legal award was made by the Collector, Land Acquisition. It was explained that the aw4rd was not signed by the concerned Collector Land Acquisition;
(ii) that no point with regard to limitation was raised to the objections filed by the non-applicants, as such, no issue was framed, therefore, the observation of the District Judge with regard to the reference having been filed after the limitation, was not maintainable;
(iii) that the learned District Judge failed to take into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, particularly, the evidence of the petitioner-appellants, as such, the order passed by the learned District Judge, is not maintainable; and
(iv) that the matter relates to apportionment of compensation amount, as such, no limitation is prescribed for filing a reference before the Collector Land Acquisition.
5. On the other hand, Malik Muhammad Yusuf Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents, while controverting the points raised by the leaned counsel for the appellants, addressed the following arguments:--
(i) That the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, particularly, the one dealing with the validity of the award, were not taken either in reference or during the arguments before the trial Court;
(ii) that the point raised with regard to non-framing of an issue on the point of limitation, merits no consideration, as the award was announced in presence of the attorney of the petitioner- appellants. Therefore, the limitation, in any case, would be six weeks from the date of announcement of the award; and
(iii) that the petitioner-appellants' plea to have produced the evidence in support of issue of limitation provided the same was framed, has no validity in the eye of law as a copy of the award was not required for filing of a reference and even in case the petitioner-appellants proved to have applied for its copy, which was not provided to them, does not extend the period of limitation prescribed for it.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. It is not disputed between the parties that the award was announced in presence of the attorney of the petitioner-appellants. The question as to what would be the limitation for filing a reference before the Collector Land Acquisition if any person interested has not accepted the award, or has objection to the measurement of the land, amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable or apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested is also involved, has primary importance in the case. It would be proper to deal first with the point raised with regard to framing of an issue on the relevant subject. It is, no doubt, correct that the non-applicants failed to raise this point in the objections filed by them. The Court also omitted to frame an issue on the point. However, it may be stated that it is not necessary to frame an issue in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner-appellants claimed to have filed their applications for the certified copy of the award which was not provided to them, as such, they were constrained to file the reference after the prescribed period of limitation and in case an issue was framed, they would have produced the evidence in support of their said assertion, as such, the limitation be extended. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants for the simple reason that the filing of the reference hardly requires a copy of the award which could have been filed without a copy of the same and thus, the plea for producing evidence in support of the issue for the purpose of extending the prescribed limitation, merits no consideration, apart from the fact that the petitioner-appellants have failed to bring any legal evidence in support of their assertion for filing an application for the copy of the award. It may also be observed that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. The reliance in this regard may also be placed on PLD 1971 Azad J&K 33.
7. Coming back to the point of prescribed limitation, it may be stated that any person interested who has not accepted the award or who has objection to the measurement of the land or apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested, has to file a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides its filing within 6 weeks from the date of Collector's award in case the interested person was present or represented before the Collector at the time of making the award. In other cases, within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12 (2), Land Acquisition Act, or within 6 months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall expire first. The relevant section is reproduced below:-- "S. 18. Reference to Court.--(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award, may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(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."
8. In the instant case, the award was announced by the Collector on November 25, 1987, in presence of attorney of the petitioner-appellants, whereas the reference was filed on March 16, 1988 which was clearly filed beyond the limitation, without any ambiguity. It would not be out of the place to mention that the point raised by the learned counsel with regard to the validity of the award, also merits no consideration as the point was neither raised in the pleadings nor argued before the trial Court. In absence of any material in-trial Court's file, this point which is a mixed question of facts and law, cannot be resolved.
9. In view of the aforesaid position, the appeals stand dismissed. As the appeals have been disposed of on preliminary point of limitation, therefore, the other points raised by the learned counsel for the parties, are not required to be adverted to.