MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHARY, J.~ Both the above captioned appeals have been filed against the one and the same Judgment of the learned District Judge, Mirpur dated 28.3.1995, whereby the reference filed by M.D.A. (appellant) was dismissed and the application filed by the AJ&K Government (appellant) for impleading him as one of the petitioners, was dismissed.
2. The succinct facts giving rise to the instant appeals are, that on the initiative of M.D.A.
(appellant), land measuring 288 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Sunkia, Mirpur was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector, Land Acquisition, fixed various rates of compensation for the various kinds of lands. Feeling aggrieved from the rates of the compensation fixed by the Collector, M.D.A. (appellant), filed a reference before the Collector, Land Acquisition, Mirpur, who referred the same to the District Judge, Mirpur. During the pendency of the reference, an application was moved by the AJK Government for impleading him as a petitioner.
3. Reference filed by M.D.A. (appeallant), and the application moved by the AJK Government were disposed of, through the impugned single Judgment. The reference filed by M.D.A. (appellant), was dismissed on the ground, that the land in question was acquired for the benefit of M.D.A. Therefore, M.D.A. Has no authority to question the finding of the Collector, Land Acquisition, regarding the fixation of the rates of the compensation. While the application filed by the AJ&K Government for impleading him as petitioner, was also dismissed. Now, the instant appeals have been filed against the aforesaid Judgment of the learned District Judge, therefore, both shall be disposed of, through this single Judgment.
4. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the M.D.A. (appellant) argued that under Section 50(2) proviso of the Land Acquisition Act, a bar was imposed on the Local Authority or the Company for whose benefit the land was acquired, for filing the reference. He submitted that through the amendment dated 24.10.1995, Section 50(2) Proviso has been deleted. A retrospective effect was given to this amendment from 1.1.1994, therefore, the bar imposed upon the Authority or the Company was removed. The learned District Judge has wrongly dismissed the reference.
5. While the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of AJK Government (appellant) contended that the application of AJK Government has been rejected illegally, therefore, the AJK Government may be impleaded as one of the petition s, in the reference.
6. While controverting the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Counsel for the respondents, Raja Hassan Akhtar Khan, contended that it is only Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which confers the authority or powers upon a person for filing of reference.
Section 50(2) has no concern with the right of filing the reference. He pegged his argument on Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and contended that under this Section, only an interested person who has not accepted the award, can file reference to the Collector. The Authority or the Company for whose benefit the land was acquired, could not be termed as an interested person, who has not accepted the award. Merely on the basis of the deletion of Section 50(2) Proviso, a right for filing the reference could not be conferred upon the Company or the Authority. He submitted that unless and until an amendment is introduced is Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the Company or the Authority is authorised and empowered to file the reference, he could not file the reference. The learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the reference.
7. It was further argued by the learned Counsel that the reference was filed on 22.2.1994 while the application by the AJK Government for impleading him as party was moved on 8.12.1994, after the span of ten months. He submitted that the limitation for filing such reference was of six months. The date on which the application for impleading as party, was moved, on that date, the limitation for filing afresh reference had already expired, therefore, the AJK Government could not be impleaded as party. The learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the application. The finding of the learned District Judge is based on sound, sagacious and tenacious reasonings which warrants no interference.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the relevant record and given my utmost muse to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The primary question requiring determination in the instant case is whether the Authority or the Company for whose benefit the land was acquired, was competent to file the reference or not?
A right to file the reference was conferred upon a person under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In Section 18, the words:- "any person interested who has not accepted the award, may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred for determination to the Court" have been used. Now, the question emerges whether the person for whose benefit the land was acquired, could be termed as "an interested person" who has not accepted the award or not?
10. The interested person was defined in Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. According to this definition, the person claiming interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition, under the Land Acquisition Act, shall be deemed to be interested person. For comprehending it, I would like to reproduce Section 3(b) of the said Act which reads as under: - "3(b) the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land, if he is interested in an easement affecting the land".
According to the aforesaid definition, it is very clear that only that person could be termed as interested person who has some interest in the claim of the compensation, made on the basis of acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act. As the person for whose benefit the land was acquired, could not be termed as an interested person in the compensation assessed under the Land Acquisition Act. While commenting on the expression of the 'interested person', it has been commented by V.G. Ramchandranin his Book, Land Acquisition & Compensation Act, 3rd Edition at page 243 in the following words:- "a local authority or the company is not as such a person interested although the Government may be acquiring the land on its behalf."
It has also been held by the High Court of Rangoon in the case titled "Mandadalay Municipal Committee v. Maung reported in AIR 1929-Rangoon page 115 that a person for v/hose interest the property is required, is not an interested person. I would like to reproduce the same which is as under:- "Reading sub. S.(b), as it stands the natural construction is that "persons interested" in Sub. S.(b): means persons interested by reason of their interest in the land acquired as owners, tenants, and the like; and not persons interested as acquiring the land."
It has been clearly laid down that the person interested is the person by reason of his interest in the land acquisition as owners, tenants, and the alike, and not the person interested as acquiring the land, therefore, the person who wants that the land may be acquired, and on whose initiative, and land was acquired, could not be considered as an "interested person", within the meaning of 'interested person', as provided in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. This view also finds support from (PLD 1969 Kar. Page 314).
11. It is only Section 18 which confers the power upon a person to file a reference against the award.
As stated above, under this provision, only the person interested who has not accepted the award, could file the reference. The Authority or the Company for whose benefit the land is acquired, could not be termed ' person interested' within the meaning of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Thus, unless and until, Section 18 is amended and the Authority or the Company for whose benefit the land is acquired, is not included in Section 18, he cannot file any reference maugre of deletion of Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
12. It is pertinent to note that in the Land Acquisition Act, in 1954, an amendment was introduced in Section 18. The Provincial Government, the Local Authority and the Company for whose benefit the land is to be acquired, were included in the said Section 18. I would like to reproduce the amendment made in 1954 which is as under:- "(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 21, the Provincial Government or a local authority or a company for which land is being acquired may, if it has not accepted the award, refer the matter to the Court, within a period of six months from the date of announcement of the award, provided that the Court shall not entertain the reference unless in its opinion, there is a prima facie case for enquiry into and determination of the objection against the award".
Consequently, in 1958, once again, an amendment was introduced in Section 18 and the words "Local Authority or a Company for whom the land is acquired, were omitted through the Land Acquisition Act, 1958. I would like to reproduce the same which is as under: - "Amendment of Section 18 Act 1 of 1894:- In sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the said act (XII of 1954), the words "or a local authority or a company for which the land is being acquired, shall be omitted."
Now, it is crystal clear that prior to 1958, the right of reference was available to the Government, Local Authority or Company for whose benefit the land was acquired, and subsequently, through an amendment in 1958, this right was withdrawn from the Local Authority or the Company. When the Legislature introduced this amendment in 1958, then, through this amendment, they had withdrawn the right pertaining to the filing of the reference from Local Authority or a Company for whose benefit the land is acquired. The Land Acquisition Act was adapted in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, in 1959 vide Act 1 of 12.1.1959, therefore, when the Land Acquisition Act was adapted in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, at that time, only the right pertaining to the filing of the reference was available to the interested person who has not accepted the award and the Government, and not to the Company or the Local Authority for whose benefit the land is to be acquired. The right pertaining to the filing of the reference is conferred by a specific provision Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Unless and until an amendment is introduced in Section 18, the Company or the Local Authority is included in Section 18 for whose benefit the land is acquired, the Company or the Local Authority could not file any reference merely on the basis of the deletion of Section 50(2) Proviso of the Land Acquisition Act.
13. It is also pertinent to note that when in 1958, an amendment was introduced in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the words "a local authority or a company' for whose benefit the land is acquired, were deleted from this Section. Even at that time, Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was in existance. It, at all. Section 50(2) imposed a bard from invoking the reference against the Land acquisition, then, what was the necessity for omitting the words "local authority or the company" for omitting the words "local authority or the company" from Section 18 of the said Act. It is thus crystal clear that it is only Section 18 which confers a right of reference. Thus when the words "local Authority or a company" were deleted, then, the right pertaining to the filing of reference was taken away from them.
14. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, in reference was filed by the M.D.A. Appellant on 29.1.1994 while Section 50(2) Proviso was omitted through an amendment on 23.10.1995. When the reference was filed, at that time, the appellant M.D.A. Was not competent and authorised to file the reference. No doubt, the retrospective effect was given to the amendment under consideration but no right could be conferred upon a person which was not available to him at the relevant time, therefore, even otherwise, it could not be said that by this amendment, the appellant-MDA was competent to file the reference in 1994.
15. It is also pertinent to note that AJK Govt; was arrayed as respondent by the M.D.A. And now, the application was moved by the AJK Government for impleading him as a petitioner. There is no law according to which respondent could be arrayed as a petitioner. It is further pertinent to note that the AJK Govt, moved- the application much after the expiration of the limitation for filing the reference to implead him as party, therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the application of the AJK Govt, for impleading him as a petitioner.
16. The epitome of the above discussion is that finding no force in these appeals these are hereby dismissed.