' The necessary facts giving rise to the present Constitutional petition are that the Oil & Gas Development Corporation acquired an area of 31 Acres, 7 Kanals and 7 Marlas in Mauza Peeran Ghaib, Tehsill City, District Multan out of which area 77 Kanals and 18 Marlas belonged to the present petitioners. On 21-2-1977 a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in that regard and subsequently the Assistant Commissioner, (S)/Collector, Land Acquisition, Multan assessed the said land at the rate of Rs,25,000 per acre. Finally on 17-3-1984 an Award was announced by the Assistant Commissioner (S)/Collector, Land Acquisition, Multan in those terms. Dissatisfied with the said Award three different sets of landowners, i.e, Riaz, etc., Muhammad Siddique, etc. And the present petitioners filed separate applications before the Collector requiring him to file a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as the petitioners and others had felt that the compensation being awarded to them for their land was inadequate. The petitioners had filed their application in that regard before the Collector on 9-5- 1984. The Collector then found all the said applications to be in order and submitted referee in that regard before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan on 16-10-1984. The said references were then heard by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan together. Through a consolidated judgment, dated 30-11-1996 the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan dismissed the petitioners' reference holding the same to be barred by time whereas the other two references were accepted and amount of compensation payable to the other two sets of landowners was enhanced from Rs, 25,000 per acre to Rs, 65,132.22 per acre. Those landowners were, thus, found to be entitled to get Rs, 40,132.22 per acre over and above Rs,25,000 per acre which had already been received by them. It was further ordered that the said landowners were also entitled to get 15% compulsory acquisition charges at the amount of Rs, 40,132.22 and 8% compound interest at the said amount (per centum per annum) as admissible under the law from the date of taking over possession of the acquired property by the Oil & Gas Development Corporation, i.e, 19-5-1977 till the payment of the outstanding compensation amount to them. Dismissal of the petitioners' reference by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan on 30-11-1996 has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court through the present Constitutional petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan, while acting as a referee Court, was not within his jurisdiction to dismiss the petitioners' reference on the ground of limitation as he was competent only to render findings on the questions referred to him and not to go behind the reference so as to consider its maintainability. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even, otherwise the Land Acquisition Collector/ Assistant Commissioner (S), Multan had expressly mentioned in paragraph No,2 of his reference, dated 16-10-1984 submitted before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan that the application filed by the petitioners seeking submission of a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was within time. It has lastly been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on the merits of the case there was no distinction between the case of the present petitioners and the cases of the other landowners who had been allowed enhanced compensation by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief on the merits of their case. As against that the learned counsel for respondent No,1 and the learned Assistant Advocate-General have maintained that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners had a remedy of appeal available to them under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They have also argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan on 30-11-1996 does not warrant interference by this Court through exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. They have, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it may straightaway be observed that it is by now a settled proposition of law that a Court hearing a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot go behind ,such a reference and cannot dismiss a reference on the ground that an application submitted before the Collector seeking submission of a reference was barred by limitation. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Government of West Pakistan (now Government of N.-W.F.P) through Collector, Peshawar v. Arbab Haji Ahmed Ali Jan and others (PLD 1981 SC 516), Government of West Pakistan (now N.-W.F.P) and 2 others v. Mst. Asmatun Nisa and 6 others (PLD 1983 SC 109), Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. v. First Assistant Judge, Hyderabad, West Pakistan and 4 others (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Karachi 826), Collector of Karachi v. Haji Gola and others (PLD 1965 (W.P.) Karachi 413), Muhammad Rafique Khan v. Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur and another (1992 CLC (Lahore) 1775) and Fazal Karim and 3 others v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabed and others (PLD 1998 SC (AJ&K) 26). In this view of the established law the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan acted clearly outside his jurisdiction by deciding Issue No,3 against the present petitioners and by finally dismissing the petitioners' reference on account of limitation alone. It may also be observed here that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan had also failed to take notice of the reference filed by the Land Acquisition Collector/Assistant Commissioner, Multan on 16-10-1984 according to paragraph No,2 whereof the petitioners' application in that regard was expressly found to have been filed within the requisite period of limitation. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan thus, surely could not overrule the Land Acquisition Collector on that score.
4. As regards the questions of Maintainability of an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan on 30-11-1996 suffice it to observe that by virtue of the provisions of section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 such an appeal is competent from an Award or from any part of the Award of the Referee Court but in the present case the Referee Court had not passed any Award vis-a-vis the present petitioners as he had dismissed the petitioners' reference on the question of limitation. Thus, in the peculiar circumstances of this case no appeal against the impugned judgment was competent before the Court and, therefore, the petitioners had quite rightly filed the present Constitutional petition before this Court against the impugned judgment. It is also by now well established that where a reference is dismissed by a Referee Court on the point of limitation there an appeal against such a decision is not competent. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Nafees-ud-Din and others v. The Secretary of State for India-in-Council and others (104 Indian Cases (1927) 397) and Mian Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din and another v. The Secretary of State for India-in-Council through the Collector of Lahore (Indian Cases (1914) 379). In this view of the settled legal position the objection of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 and the learned Assistant Advocate-General regarding maintainability of the present Constitutional petition is found to be without any substance.
5. For what has been observed above it is quite clear that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan was not justified in dismissing the petitioners' reference on the ground of limitation and ordinarily in such a situation the matter would have been remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan for a decision of the petitioners' reference on its merits. It has, however, been found by this Court that through the impugned judgment, dated 30-11-1996 the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan had also attended to the merits of the case and while deciding Issue No,9 it had been found by him that the other landowners were entitled to be compensated at the rate of Rs,65,132.22 per acre instead of Rs,25,000 per acre determined in the Award. For arriving at the said conclusion detailed and otherwise satisfactory reasons had been recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan for determining the compensation to which the landowners were entitled. It is not disputed before me that all the other landowners had accepted the said decision of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan and they have already received the said amount of compensation after the said judgment.
It is also not denied that neither the Collector, Land Acquisition nor the Oil & Gas Development Corporation had challenged the said determination of proper compensation by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan before any higher Court or forum. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General have also remained unable to show to this Court as to how character of the land of the present petitioners or its location are different from the lands of the abovementioned landowners as all these lands are situated in the same vicinity and are of almost of same nature and character. In this view of the matter I have found no reason to remand the matter to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan for a decision of the petitioners' reference on its merits as the merits of the petitioners' case already practically stand determined in their favour through the impugned judgment. Thus, if the question of limitation and the decision of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan on the question of limitation are taken out of consideration then the petitioners are also entitled to the same amount of compensation as the other landowners whose lands had been acquired alongwith that of the petitioners.
6. For the reasons mentioned above this petition is allowed and the impugned dismissal of the petitioners' reference by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan vide judgment, dated 30-11-1996 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.
' Upon acceptance of this petition it is hereby declared that the present petitioners are also entitled to be compensated for their land at the rate of Rs,65,132.22 per acre. The petitioners have already received compensation for their land at the rate of Rs, 25,000 per acre. They are, therefore, entitled to receive Rs,40, 132.22 per acre in addition to the compensation of Rs,25,000 per acre already received by them. The petitioners are also held to be entitled to get 15% compulsory acquisition charge at the amount of Rs,40,132.22 and 8% compound interest on the said amount (per centum per annum) as admissible under the law from the date of taking over of the possession of the acquired property by respondents Nos.1 and 2, i.e, 19-5-1977 till 30-11-1996, i.e, the date on which the petitioners' reference was decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan. The learned counsel for the petitioners has unambiguously stated before this Court that the petitioners shall not claim interest for the period between 30-11-1996 till the date of payment of the remaining amount of compensation as declared by this Court through the present judgment.