2026 PLP 1052 (YLR)

Iqbal Ahmed Kasi, J.

Through the instant Constitutional Petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ('the Constitution') the petitioner has sought the following relief: "It is therefore requested that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the constitution petition and the award dated 13/2/2020 may kindly be enhanced from Rs.17000/- to Rs.19000/- per sq.ft. including 15% additional compensation per annum and cost of superstructure at prevailing market value at Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per sq.ft."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of the property, situated at Mohal Sirki Kalan, Mouza Sirki, Tappa Saddar-I, Tehsil City, District Quetta, vide mutation No.4955, Khasra No.1415/713, measuring 4236.91 sq.ft. ('the property in question'), over the same, the petitioner has also constructed nine shops and five flats. The property in question was acquired by the C&W Department for the purpose of extension of Sabzal Road, Quetta Development Package, Quetta. The petitioner approached the respondent No.4 and apprised that the rate of property in question is Rs.17000 to Rs.19000/- per sq.ft. for the reason that the property in question is situated in Quetta City, and rate of the same area is high than the other areas, being thickly populated, but the respondent No.4 with connivance of other respondents, passed the award dated 13.02.2020, whereby, the rate of per sq.ft. of the lands in question was fixed as Rs.1725/-. Against the award dated 13.02.2020, the petitioner through application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, also approached the respondent No.4, but the Deputy Commissioner Quetta, dismissed the reference being barred by law, vide order dated 01.08.2023 ('the impugned order').

3. We have heard M/s. Rehmatullah Bareech and Ahsanullah Kakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Ishaq Nasar, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, learned AAG and have gone through the record of the case. In the instant Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has prayed for modification of award dated 13.02.2020, and also requested for enhancement in the amount of compensation from Rs.1725/- per sq.ft. to Rs.17000/- up to 19000/- per sq.ft. including 15% additional compensation per annum and with cost of superstructure at prevailing market value at Rs.3000 to Rs.4000/- per sq.ft.

4. Since, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1894'), the period provided for filing objection upon an award is six months, therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the referred Section, which states that: "

18. Reference to Court: (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the appointment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: 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, sub-section (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever-period shall first expire."

5. Under clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894, provides that where the person himself or represented by any one before the Collector at the time of award made, the party who aggrieved from the award, can file objection to the Collector within six weeks from the date of award, whereas, under clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894, provides that the other cases within six weeks of receipt of the notice from Collector under Section 12 subsection (2) or within six month from the date of the Collector's Award.

6. Under subsection (2) of Section 12 of the Act where notice has been issued to claimant within six weeks from the receipt of notice, the period of filing reference is six months, therefore, it would be relevant to reproduce sub-Section (2) of Section 12, which states that: "12(2). The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives, when the award is made.

7. Under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894, provides the stage to give notice arises immediately when award is made. This Section is to be read with Section 18 of the Act of 1894, not separately. Jointly considering both the sections, it become obligatory upon the Collector to given notice to the person after passing award as early as possible. The question of limitation for the purpose of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 is to be decided in the light of Section 42 of the Act. Reliance is placed to the case of Arsha Begum v. Habibullah (1990 CLC 1812), whereby, it has been observed as under: "

8. In this limit compass the question which now requires to be determined is that even though the point with regard to notice was not raised by the appellant in her application for reference. Whether she can be permitted to raise this point at this stage. Under section 12, subsection (2) of Land Acquisition Act, the stage to give notice arises immediately, when the award is made by the Collector. This section is to be read along with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. By taking both of them jointly in consideration, it becomes obligatory upon the Collector to give notice for making of the award as early as possible because only then an application for reference can be made by any person interested who has not accepted the award. It has been laid down in many authorities that a person interested does not mean a person whose interest the Collector is prepared to admit. In this case, the Collector had accepted the interest of the appellant as he had made the award in favour of those whose names appeared in Naqsha Haqiyyat which was prepared by Settlement Authorities. In Naqsha-Haqlyyat the name of the appellant is given moreover there is another entry which shows that except appellant her sister, her brother etc have received the compensation to the extent of their shares. Appellant was one of the party in whose favour, the award was made. It was therefore, mandatory for the Collector, Land Acquisition to effect the service on her as laid down by section 12, subsection (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The question of limitation for the purpose of section 18 is to be decided in the light of section 42 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant therefore, can raise this point even at this stage. It was held in PLD 1970 Lahore 321, that if notice is not given to interested person of the making of the award within such time as would leave enough respite to a person to move an application under section 18 within a period of six months from the date of the making of the award. It would be a non-compliance with an obligatory part of the statute and the result would be that the award given by the Collector would be vitiated and action under section 11 shall have to be taken afresh so that a new award be made. The relevant observations is given below from page 329 of the same authority for the convenience of the ready reference. "In this view of the matter, the giving of a notice under Section 12 is an imperative provision of law and read with the proviso to section 18 it becomes obligatory upon the Collector to give notice of the making of the award within such time as would leave enough respite to a person to file an application under section 18 within a period of six months from the date of the making of the award. If such a notice is not given it would be a non-compliance with an obligatory part of the statute and the result would be that the award given by the Collector would be vitiated and action under section 11 shall have to be taken afresh so that a new award be made." The question of limitation under Land Acquisition Act came up for consideration in various authorities. It would be expedient to consider some of them. In AIR 1943 Mad. 327, it was observed at Page 330 as under: "Under section 18 any person interested could make an application if the person making 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 or in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under S.12(2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire." In AIR 1960 J & K 80 Para 18, it was observed as under:- "Although in strict law there is sufficient reason to set aside the entire land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner's learned Counsel, in view of the fact that very costly buildings have already been reared on the land, did not press for quashing of the entire proceedings. Towards the end of the arguments, he unambiguously stated that he wanted only a reference to be made by the Collector to the court for determination of the Collector to the petitioners who were the owners of the property acquired. Nor were the petitioners present in person before the collector at any time in the course of the proceeding: nor were they represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award or at any time previous to that. In the circumstances, as the petitioners did not know of the making of the awards, they could not have been expected to apply under S.18 within six months from the date of the Collector's award. In the circumstances of this case, a true and proper construction of the provisions of S.18 will be to require the petitioners to apply within six months from the date of their knowledge of the Collector's award. Although they made an application within six months after they came to know of the making of the award, it was rejected on the superficial ground of being time-barred. This was not a correct view to take when the law expressly provided that an owner of property is entitled to ask the Collector to refer the matter to a Court, and attempt should be made to construe that provision of law realistically after taking into consideration the fact that the time-limit prescribed in that provisions presupposes the knowledge of the passing of the award on the part of the applicant." In PLD 1973 Note 124 (Lahore), it was observed at page 192 as under;- "The law of limitation requires strict interpretation when it is applied against an admitted existing right of a citizen. Under sub-clause (b) of section 18(2) the limitation shall be six weeks only if there is proof of "the receipt of notice from the Collector under section 12, subsection (2)". There is nothing in sub-clause (b) to indicate that knowledge obtained in any other manner would also be covered by the first part of the clause or could be treated as substitute of the requirement provided therein for a notice under section 12(2). Had it been the intention of the Legislature in such cases also to fix limitation of six weeks, then the acquisition of knowledge of the award by a party would have been specifically mentioned as another alternative in sub-clause (b) or another sub-clause would have been added." From the above survey of the case-law it is evident that the question of limitation for making reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is a mixed question of law and facts. It cannot be decided in isolation keeping in view only section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The period of limitation for filing application for reference under section 18 is to be counted in the light of proceedings taken under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further evident that the Land Acquisition Act has prescribed three different periods of limitation. Six weeks limitation from the date of the award, if the applicant was present either personally or through his recognized agent at the time when the award was made. In case the applicant was not present either personally or through his agent, then a six weeks time from the date of the notice received under section 12, subsection (2) or if no notice was served than six months from the date of the award. The learned District Judge in this case, due to erroneous assumption of material question of law with regard to limitation, declared the reference filed by the appellant barred by limitation, whereas it was filed well within limitation because the period of limitation in this case was thus six months and not six weeks as held by the learned District Judge, Muzaffarabad.

8. From the above provisions of law and the judgment reproduced herein above, it appears that the order passed by the respondent No.4, dismissing the reference of petitioner, is not speaking one, as the order of the Deputy Commissioner cum Collector, Quetta, is silent as to whether notices have been sent to the petitioner after passing award, as provided under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 or otherwise? In view of above, the instant Constitutional Petition is partly allowed, the impugned order dated 01.08.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Cum Collector, Quetta, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner cum Collector, Quetta, to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law. UN/18/Bal. Petition allowed.