EFFECTEES OF JUGLOTE HYDEL PROJECT through their representatives Versus COLLECTOR/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT GILGIT
1. MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This writ petition under section 19-A, Northern Areas Legal Framework (Amended) Order, 1999 is directed against the Order, dated 31-7-2001 passed by the Collector Land Acquisition/Deputy Commissioner, Gilgit (hereinafter referred respondent).
2. Facts relevant for the petition are that, the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired for the construction of the "Juglote Hydel Power Project", accordingly the award No.SO(Nomal)-4/935-37/2000 dated 30-4-2002 was passed by the respondent and being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners agitated the award under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25-6-2001, before the respondent:
3. The respondent after enquiring the matter, declined to refer the same to the Referee Court/District Judge, Gilgit, and dismissed the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the petitioners as time-barred hence this petition.
4. The only point before us to determine in this writ petition is whether the respondent has followed the relevant law properly and has rightly declared the petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to be time-barred.
5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate-General for respondent in detail to thrash out the above point in the light of the relevant law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that subsection (2) proviso to the section 18, Land Acquisition Act prescribes three different periods of limitation within which an appellant can demand a reference under this section. (1) Six weeks time from the date of the Collector's award, if the applicants were present either personally or by agents at the time when the award was made; and (2) In case the applicants were not present either in person or by agents at the time of the award; (a) A six weeks time from the date of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12(2). (b) A six months time from the date of the award whichever period shall first expire .
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners stressed, that the case in hand falls in the second part of Clause (b) of the proviso, which is six months, for the reasons that neither the petitioners nor their agents were present at the time of passing of the award nor they have been served notice under section 12 of the subsection (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel argued that since the respondent had failed to serve the notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act upon the petitioners as such the impugned order passed by him is based on wrong interpretation of relevant law, therefore the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand the learned Advocate-General agreed that the proviso to section 18 Land Acquisition Act prescribes three different periods of limitations within which an appellant can demand a reference, but differed the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the case falls within the ambit of period of six months and urged that, respondent has passed the award after serving the notice to the petitioners under section 12 subsection (2) of Land Acquisition Act as such the case of the petitioners comes under the period of six weeks from the date of the y receipt of the service of the notice. The petitioners were served the notice on 2-5-2001 and the petitioners have filed the objection application under section 1g of the Land Acquisition Act on 21-6-2001, so the application was preferred after lapse of six weeks' period, therefore, the respondent has rightly declared the application time-barred. Since the respondent has not erred in law and rather he has followed the law as such the impugned order needs not to be interfered by this Court.
9. We have carefully looked into the matter and have come to the conclusion that, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate-General have no controversial views over the law point, that if the petitioners have been duly served the notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act then the period of filing of the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice, otherwise the period is six months , to determine this point of fact. We perused the notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the respondent, with the assistance of the learned Advocate-General and counsel for the petitioners. The copy of the notice placed on the file shows that it has been issued on 30-4-2001 and it has been handed over to a person named (Shamsher Ali) who on 2-5-2001 inserts 4 names; (1) Must Ali, (2) Habib Muzahir, (3) Asghar Ali, (4) Qasim Ali as Mukhtars of the petitioners on the backside of the notice the person (Shamsher Ali) also inserts the following words:--
10. The learned Advocate-General conceded the fact, (when he was confronted by the Court) that even the signatures of the above mentioned four persons as Mukhtars of the petitioners have not been obtained by the person (Shamsher Ali).
11. The petitioners are 89 in number and it is an admitted fact that, they have not been served the notice personally and service of the notice through their representatives/agents is also doubtful and not in accordance with law, for the reasons that, the person (Shamsher Ali) whose official status is unknown, (perhaps he may be a Piada) has not bothered to obtain the signatures of the persons named in the notice as representatives and how this person could be believed without examining him under law the respondent has neither examined the person nor have the petitioners been given a chance to cross the person (Shamsher Ali) while conducting the inquiry. Therefore, the notice could not be considered to be duly served on the petitioners or their agents.
12. Since we are of the firm legal view, that, the notice although issued, but has not been duly served, in accordance with law, to the petitioners or their agents. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned Advocate-General in this regard is overruled. The objection petition falls within the ambit of six months' period of limitation as provided in section 18, of the Land Acquisition Act . Hence the objection petition is well within time, accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the objection petition is remitted to the respondent to follow section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in this regard. No orders as to costs.
13. F.B./7/Glt. Petition allowed.