TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-9- 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II Charsadda, whereby the reference for determination of compensation for the land of the appellants acquired by the respondents- Department was dismissed being barred by time.
2. Mr. Gul Sadber, the learned counsel representing the appellants argued that the landed property of the appellants was acquired by respondents through Award No,98 dated 17-1-2001. The appellants/land owners filed objection petitions under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which were referred by the Land Acquisition Collector to Referee Court, the learned Additional District Judge-III, Charsadda, for determination but the same were, dismissed being barred by time. Once objection petition is referred to the learned Referee Court for its determination, it was argued, the same could not be dismissed being barred by time.
3. On the other hand Mr. Imtiaz Ali Additional A.G. Representing the respondents candidly admitted that once objection petition was referred by the Collector to the Referee Court, the same could not be dismissed being barred by time.
4. The admitted position in this case is that the land belonging to appellants was acquired by respondents for construction of Islamabad-Peshawar Motorway vide Award No,98/LAC/PMP/NHA dated 17-1-2001. The requirement of law is that if the land owners are aggrieved of the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector, they have to file objection petition under section 18 of the ibid Act within a period of six months, but it is also by now settled that once an objection petition is referred by the Collector Land Acquisition to the Referee Judge for its determination, the same could not be dismissed on the question of limitation. Similar proposition came up for hearing before the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in Government of West Pakistan (Now Government of N.W.F.P.) through Collector, Peshawar v. Arbab Haji Ahmad Ali Jan and others (PLD 1981 S.0 516) in which it was held:-- "We agree with the formulation of this opinion as in the absence of any specific provision in the Act itself, the jurisdiction conferred by the relevant sections debarred the designated Court from examining the validity of the reference which is a condition precedent for the designated Court to act accordingly. As the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and so the designated Court cannot go behind the reference. The question as to whether the application is or is not within time, is in the exclusive domain the Collector and the discretion exercised by him is not justiciable qua the exercise of judicial power by the designated Court having regard, in particular, to the language of section 21 of the Act. It was, however, revisable under section 18-B of the Act, as applicable to this Province, and the final order thus passed could not, by any stretch of imagination, be the subject-matter of review by the designated Court." The same view was taken by August Supreme Court of Pakistan in Government of West Pakistan (Now Government of N.W.F.P.) and 2 others v. Mst. Asmatun Nisa and 6 others (PLD 1983 S.0 109) in which it was held:- "So far as the second contention is concerned, there is no difficulty in repelling the same, as, while disposing of a similar point, this Court in PLD 1981 S.0 516 held that the Court cannot go into the question whether the application under section 18 was barred by limitation." The High Court also took the same view in Hassan Imdad v. Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lasbella (PLD 1985 Quetta 1), and Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur and another v.
Babu Khan (1997 M LD 2577) and Muhammad Rafiq Khan v. Province of Punjab and others (1992 CLC 1775). We therefore, accept the appeal in hand, set aside the impugned Judgment/decree dated 3-9- 2003 and remand the case back to the learned Additional District Judge-III, Charsadda to decide the reference on merits strictly in accordance with law within a period of six months. Parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 26-2-2003. The office is directed to remit the record back to the Court within a week positively. There shall be no order as to costs.