2000 PLP 1185 (YLR)

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. " According to the counsel in First Appeal No.22 of 1992 the reference was made on 21‑1‑1991, in First Appeal No.23 of 1992 which was made on 27‑5‑1991 and in First Appeal No.24 of 1992 it was made on 27‑5‑1991 and in First Appeal No.25 of 1992 on 4‑3‑1991. According to him all these references were time bar. He has also pointed out that the reference was wrongly made as it was to be made to the District Judge and the Court to whom the reference was made should have noted this aspect, and therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. Furthermore, he has pointed out that the so -called Mukhtiarkar's statement/certificate is in fact issued by a architect and not much reliance can be placed upon it. Besides, taking the legal objection the learned Additional Advocate‑General has challenged that the amount claimed by the appellant as compensation is fair. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the reported case of Province of Punjab through Project Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department v. Sher Muhammad and another PLD 1983 Lah. 578 where their Lordships has held that if reference was not made within six months of award then it is barred by limitation. In the same case their Lordships had also held that it would be unsafe to make an estimate of price of entire land on the basis of mutation. He has also relied in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1967 SC 191 where it is held that the maximum period for filing objection under section 18 was six months. He has also relied in the case of Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1971 Azad J&K

33. In this case their Lordships while relying‑on PLD 1967 SC 191 have added that ‑coon 5 of the Limitation Act would nr be applicable to Land Acquisition Act the counsel has also drawn my attention to 1998 CLC 1520 where the maxim has been held as follows:‑‑ "' A communi observatia non est recedendum (Where a thing was provided to be done in a particular manner, it had to be done in that manner and if not so done, it would not be lawful.)" Mr. Ghulam Rasool Qureshi was called upon to assist this Court has first summarised the fact which are worthwhile reproducing: ‑‑ Admitted facts of the case are that the lands of the appellants was acquired for public purposes. The notification under sections 4 and 6/1 were published on 29‑7‑1989 and 12‑10‑1989 respectively. The possession of the land was taken on 12‑10‑1989. Award was passed on 23‑1‑1990 wherein the L.A.O. Mr. Mukhtar Hussain allowed compensation as under:? (a) Market value at Rs. 1,12,000 per acre under section 23(1) of Land Acquisition Act. (b) Compulsory acquisition charges under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. He omitted to allow' Additional Compensation at 15 P.A. under section 28(A) and simple interest 6% P.A. under section 34 of Land Acquisition Act. The appellant hotly contested before L.A.O. Mr. Vishan Das took over the charge. The appellant made the applications as under: (i) In C.A. No.22 of 1992 M. Younus filed application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act on 21‑1‑1991 (after 11 months 28 days of award dated 23‑1‑1990). (ii) In C.A. No.23 of 1992 Islamuddin filed application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act on 27‑5‑1991 (after 1 year 4 months 4 days of award dated 23‑1-1990). (iii) In C.A. No.24 of 1992 Ashraf filed application under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act on 27‑5‑1991 (after 1 year 4 months day of award dated 23‑1‑1990). (iv) In C.A. No.25.of 1992 M. Yousuf on 4‑3‑1991 (after 1 year 1 month 18 days of award dated 23‑1‑1990). He has argued on three main points, on point No. 1 it was argued: Whether the L.A.O. Mr. Vishan Das was hand in glove with the appellants while making references? The Land Acquisition Officer sent the references (in Appeals Nos.22 of 1992 and 23 of 1992) to A.D.J., Shahdadpur though he ought to have sent to District Judge, Sanghar through his letter dated 11‑2‑1991 and 1‑6‑1991 and the remaining two matters were sent without any reference letter. He obliged the appellants purposely and did not examine the legal position as to whether he was competent to make reference in these matters? And that what was the procedure of making the reference in Land Acquisition matters? Mr. Vishan Das also obliged the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge as well, when he was served with summons from the learned Additional District Judge he made appearance once and thereafter, remained absent and did not file the written statement. The learned Additional District Judge even after the evidence of the appellants, served the notice on L.A.O. but he remained absent to oblige the appellant. And the learned Additional District Judge was forced to pass ex parte order which shows that Mr. Vishan Das, L.A.O. was hand in gloves with the appellants for reasons not recognized by law. Thus, they have deliberately caused loss to the Government. The references are to be sent to Courts strictly within the provision of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and on the prescribed Pro forma No.VII being a mandatory requirement but the L.A.O. totally ignored the provision of law. It is settled law by now that where a thing was provided to be done in a particular manner, it had to be done in that manner and if not done so, it would not be lawful. 1998 CLC 1520 and PLD 1964 SC

536. The Court is under a duty to show awareness of the law of the land and to apply I it, irrespective of the fact whether parties or their Counsel invoked it or not? 1994 SCMR 107 (F.B.). The references ought not to have been sent and if sent, ought to have been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge on the above sole referred legal position. Point No.2. Whether the L.A.O. had the jurisdiction to make these references? Point No.

3. Whether the learned referee Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate these references? The L.A.O. has power to make reference subject to certain conditions i.e.: (a) There should be a written application by the person interested, who has not accepted the award. (b) Nature of objections must be given. (c) The time, within which, the application shall be made. The L.A.O. is bound to satisfy itself that the reference made by him comply with the specified conditions so as to give the Court, jurisdiction to hear the references and if the references do not comply with the terms of the Act, then the Court cannot entertain them. If the applications under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act are made after the maximum period of six months to the L.A.O., the L.A.O. shall reject such applications and even if he makes the references on such applications, the Court shall reject the same and shall not have the jurisdiction to entertain such references and to adjudicate them. In the present cases the Learned Additional District Judge has given the judgment without any jurisdiction as such the judgment passed by him suffers from total want of jurisdiction and are void. I am supported in the above by the following decisions: (1) 1996 CLC 1943. (2)1997 MLD 2359. (3) PLD 1983 Lah. 578. (4) AIR 1963 Ker. 3. (5) AIR 1965 And. Pra. 25. (6) AIR 1962 J&K 59. (7) AIR 1959 Allahabad 576. (8) PLD 1971 Azad J&K

33. Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under Land Acquisition Act. (a) PLD 1967 SC 191. (F.B.) PLD 1971Azad J&K 33 (D.B.). In view of the facts and law, the references made by Mr. Vishandas is without any jurisdiction and for his ulterior motives. It is further observed that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction, whatsoever to entertain and to adjudicate on the references which were illegal and did not confer jurisdiction on him. The judgments passed by the learned Lower Court has no legal sanctity and are void for all purposes. (a) For the reasons stated above, the references are bad in law and did confer jurisdiction to Additional District Judge to entertain them and the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge is declared as void being corum non judice, as already discussed in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Mianwali and another v. Muhammad Amir and 4 others 1987 CLC 2095. The Land Acquisition Officer becomes functus officio once the reference is sent to the District Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the following case laws:‑‑ (1) Nazar Muhammad Khan v. Collector NLR 1980 Revenue Lah. 36. (2) Muhammad Mustafa v. Excise and Taxation Officer and another PLD. 1992 SC 398. (3) Sardar Abdus Samad Khan v. Land Acquisition Collector 1990 MLD 972. (4) Government of Sindh and 2 others v. Syed Shakir Ali Jafri and 6 others 1996 SCMR 1361. (5) Land Acquisition Officer, L.B.O.D. WAPDA, Hussainabad, Hyderabad v. Abdul Hamid Ali and 2 others 1999 MLD 2922. (6) Syed Saadi Jafri Zainabi v. Land Acquisition Collector and Assistant Commissioner PLD 1992 SC 472. (7) Water and Sanitation Authority and another v. Niaz Muhammad and 5 others 1994 SCMR 1648. (8) Haji Muhammad and others v. Deputy Commissioner, Karachi (East) 1990 MLD 923. (9) Falak Sher v. Ali Ahmad Noor and others 1999 CLC 1297. Now the award dated 23‑1‑1990 passed by Mr. Mukhtar Hussain Land Acquisition Officer remains as the only legal order in the field, which also requires modification to the extent of relief under section 28(A) and under section 34 of Land Acquisition Act. Since it was mandatory on Land Acquisition Officer to award the above relief which, he has omitted. The relief under section 28(A) and under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is allowed on the compensation already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, up to the date the compensation was paid to the appellant. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑487/K Order accordingly.