MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, DISTRICT SKARDU
This appeal challenges the judgment of the Land Acquisition/District Judge, Skardu, which dismissed the appellant's petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, primarily on the grounds of limitation. The appellant contended that the Referee Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the issue of limitation once the Collector had referred the matter to it. The core legal question was whether a Referee Court possesses the authority to adjudicate the competence of a reference based on the limitation period prescribed under the Act. The Court held that the Referee Court has no jurisdiction to judge the competence of a reference regarding limitation; that power rests exclusively with the Collector. The Referee Court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to determining the measurement of land, the amount of compensation, and the persons entitled to such compensation. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Referee Court for adjudication on merits, establishing that the Referee Court cannot revisit the limitation issue once a reference is made.
- Does a Referee Court have the jurisdiction to determine the competence of a reference on the point of limitation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- What are the specific powers and scope of a Referee Court under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Is the determination of limitation in a land acquisition reference exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Collector?
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Section 18(2), Land Acquisition Act 1894
1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This first appeal is directed against the judgment/order, dated 25-6-2004, passed by Land Acquisition/District Judge, Skardu on the reference/petition of the appellant, whereby the learned Referee Court has dismissed the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) referred by the Collector Land Acquisition concerned.
2. ' According to the reference/petition the facts concisely are that the Collector Skardu acquired land of the appellant amongst others measuring 9 Marlas and award was passed @ Rs,1,00,000 per Kanal vide Award No,D-1 (GHS/SKD/97 dated 6-8-1997). Later on the Collector again acquired the land of petitioner measuring one Kanal, 3 Marlas on 24-1-1998 and enhanced the rate at Rs,1,60,000 per Kanal. According to the petitioner/appellant, fruit trees affected have not been taken into consideration while preparing the award. Further the land is situated in a busy commercial area and the same is zero point of the City, and the market rate is much higher than that made by the Collector.
3. ' We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Advocate-General for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the learned Referee Court has mainly based the impugned order on the point of limitation as provided by section 18, subsection
(2) of the Act. The determination of the point of limitation is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Collector and once the Collector refers the petition to the Referee Court, without determining the point of limitation, the Referee Court under the special law is bound to adjudicate the petition on its merits without going into the point of limitation.
4. ' In response to the above point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Advocate-General could not meet the argument, but impliedly conceded the above point of law.
5. ' We have received support and guidance from case-law of superior Court in the matter. There is consensus of the opinion of higher judiciary in Pakistan that, the Referee Court has no jurisdiction to judge the competence of the reference on the point of limitation. The Collector has powers to refuse reference to the Court if it is found that objections have been filed beyond time, prescribed under proviso to section 18 of the Act. Powers of Referee Court under the Act are limited to determination of (a) measurement of Land (b) amount of compensation and (c) persons entitled to compensation and its apportionment. In this regard we are supported by case-law laid down in:--
(1) PLD 1965 Kar. Page 573, (2) 1984 KLR (Revenue cases) page 150, (3) PLD 1965 Kar. Page 413, (4)
6. PLD 1962 Lah. Page 292 (5) PLD 1972 Pesh. Page 197.
7. ' In consequence upon the above discussion, the case is remanded to the Referee Court to adjudicate the petition on its merits, after hearing the parties, without going into the issue of limitation as the same is not within his jurisdiction to determine.
Cited by 4 cases
- SABZAL and 9 others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR and 2 others 2015 CLC 97
- FAZAL KHALIQ And Another vs NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY And 2 Other 2014 CLC 465
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR NHA and 7 others 2014 PLD Peshawar 58
- JANNA T KHAN vs CHAIRMAN NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD and 2013 PLJ Peshawar 97, 2013 CLC 1134