2015 PLP 2541 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD GHAZANFER KHAN, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity, propriety and legality of order passed by respondent No.9 dated 18-6-2011, vide which his objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was turned down.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that land owned by the petitioner bearing khasra No.712 situated in revenue estate Noon was acquired through Award No.2 dated 24-12-2007 for construction of Serai-Gambila Project, but no payment was made to him under the misconception that this khasra number was owned by the Government. So the petitioner knocked at the doors of Justice and as a result a decree was passed in his favour which on appeal was upheld by the appellate Court vide judgments and decrees dated 22-10-2009 and 23-11-2010 respectively. The petitioner filed objection petition wherein the respondents determined Rs. Five lac per kanol as compensation which the petitioner received under protest and then for enhancement of compensation presented objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but respondent No.9 with mala fide intention vide order dated 18-6-2011 rejected the same, but just on flimsy grounds, hence the present petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance.

4. The controversy between the parties relates to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which reads as under:--

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 apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested".

5. Bare reading of this section leads one to the conclusion that on receipt of objection petition, the Collector has no other option but to send the petition to Referee Judge though with any valid and legal objection, but the Collector has no power to decide the objection petition himself. The word 'Reference' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows:-- "Reference:- The Act of sending or directing another, For information, Service, considera tion or decision, Specific, the Act of sending a case to a Master or Referee for information or decision".

6. The section of law with its Heading "Reference to Court" bounds the Collector to send any objection petition received by him to the Referee Judge. Under the law, the Collector has no authority or jurisdiction to decide the objection petition on his own. Similarly, the word "Reference", as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, further clarifies the legal position.

7. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of the Collector is ab initio void, without jurisdiction and having no legal effect upon the rights of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the Collector for transmitting it to the Referee Judge who shall decide it in accordance with law. ZC/302/P Petition allowed.