1999 PLP 1142 (YLR)

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? 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. Ramchandran in his Book, Land Acquisition and Compensation Act, 3rd Edition at page 243 in the following words:‑‑ "a local authority or the company is riot as such a person interested although the Government may by acquiring the land on its behalf." It has also been held by the High Court of Rangoon in the case titled "Manadalay Municipal Committee v. Mating reported in AIR 1929 Rangoon page 115 that a person for whose interest the property is acquired, is not an interested person. I would like to reproduce the same which is as under:‑‑ "Reading subsection (b), as it stands the natural construction is that persons interested' in subsection (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, the 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 Karachi page

314. 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. 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 I of 1894.‑‑ in subsection (3) of sec tion 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 a 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 and Kashmir in 195.9 vide Act I of 12‑1‑1959, therefore, when the Land Acquisition' Act was adapted in Azad Jammu and 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 of 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. 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 existence. It, at all, section 50(2) imposed a bar from invoking the reference against the Land Acquisition, then, what was the necessity 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. It is also pertinent to note that in the present case, the 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 M.D.A. was competent to file the reference in 1994. It is also pertinent to note that AJ&K Government was arrayed as respondent by the M.D.A. and now, the application was moved by the AJ&K 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 AJ&K Government moved the application much after the expiration of the limitation for filing the reference to implead it as party, therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the application of the AJ&K Government for impleading it as a petitioner. The epitome of the above discussion is that finding no force in these appeals these are hereby dismissed. H.B.T./166/AJ&K Appeals dismissed.