ABDUL WAKEEL KHAN and 4 others vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, NOWSHERA and 10 others

Certain land for the construction of a residential colony for Armoured Corps at Nowshera was acquired and a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by the Collector on 1642-1982 followed by notices to the interested persons under section 9 of the Act ibid. Thereafter on the completion of enquiry the final Award was passed on 25-9-1983 under section 11 of the Act. Abdul Wakil etc., the petitioners herein, being not satisfied with the apportionment and rate of compensation of the land made in the final Award filed an application under section 18 of the Act before the Collector on 22-12-1983 requiring him that the matter be referred for determination of the Court. The District Judge, Peshawar on the receipt of the reference entrusted it for disposal to Senior Civil Judge. During proceedings before the Senior Civil Judge, M/s. Masud etc., i,e,, the respondents Nos. 2 to 11 on 4-11-1984 filed an application regarding their impleadment as party to the case. This application after hot contest by the petitioners was allowed by the Court, vide its judgment and order, dated 23-11-1985 which is now impugned before me in this petition lodged under section 115, C.P.C.

2. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Naqashband Khan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, The Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Attended the Court on 30-4-1994 ans stated that the Provincial Government has no interest in the case. The respondents Nos. 2 to 11 are absent. They did not also bring their counsel for arguments in spite of many opportunities having been given to them.

Admittedly, Masud etc., the respondents aforesaid, have never filed any application before the Collector as "interested persons" requiring him that the matter be referred for determination of the Court as required under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which, if interested, they were required to submit within six months from the date of the Award published under section 11 of the Act. It was only much after that when the proceedings were initiated on a reference filed by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Peshawar that the contesting respondents on 4-11-1984 moved an application for their impleadment as a party to the reference case regardless of the fact, that the respondents by accepting the Award received the compensation money without protest and being satisfied did not file any reference before the Collector under section 18 of the Act within the stipulated period of limitation. No doubt the Court may strike out or add party either upon or without application of either party if it considers the presence of any person before it necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in a suit as required under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C., but the position before a Land Acquisition Judge while dealing with a reference case under section 18 of the Act would be quite different. Here a special procedure is provided by the Statute itself for filing a reference before the Collector within a certain period and the Collector after initial scrutiny of the reference as laid down by sub-section (2) would send it for disposal to the Land Acquisition Judge alongwith a statement which he is required to prepare under section 19 of the Act.

3. In the instant case the contesting respondents never adopted this course as provided by law. No doubt C.P.C. Is applicable for certain purposes in proceedings before the Land Acquisition Judge but he could not entertain the application of the respondents for their impleadment in the case under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C., the matter having arisen under a special law which provides for a special procedure for the "interested persons" to go before the Land Acquisition Judge in cases relating to apportionment or rate of compensation etc. Of the land acquired under the Act ibid through the Collector of the District who had issued notifications under sections 4 and 11 of the Act.

This would be besides the question that not only the application filed by the contesting respondents before the Reference Judge was hopelessly barred by limitation, they having accepted the Award and by receiving the compensation amount without protest could not seek any remedy even by way of a reference under section 18 of the Act.

4. In this view of the matter I find that the learned lower forum has fallen into error in the exercise of jurisdiction in this manner. I shall accept this revision petition and set aside the judgment and order impugned. No order as to costs.