| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4941 2025 SLD 4941 = 2024 SCMR 2071 |
Civil Petition No.14-P/2015, decided on 25th September, 2024. (Against the judgment dated 07.11.2014 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P. No.2597-P of 2014).
Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Irfan Saadat Khan, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ
Khalid Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (via video-link, Peshawar). Nemo for the
Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th September, 2024.
FAZLI AKBAR KHAN and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through District Collector, Mardan and others---Respondents
Law: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section: 18, 30, 31
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)---
----Ss. 18, 30 & 31---Land acquisition---Compensation---Reference petition filed before the Collector---Limitation---Barred by time---Petitioners' (land owners) grievance was related to the Order, dated 22.04.2014,of the Referee Court, but instead they impugned the Order of the Collector, dated 02.11.2011---Order of the Collector made it quite clear that the Referee Court was being sent the Reference petition for disposal under sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act') only and not under section 18 of the Act, as the reference on the face of it was barred by limitation---Award was passed on 11.10.2010, and the Reference petition was filed before the Collector by the petitioners, on 26.10.2011, exactly a year later---Petitioners were indeed barred by time by virtue of section 18 of the Act and thus the Collector's Order accurately referred the matter to the Referee Court under sections 30 and 31 of the Act only---Moreover, it was a matter of record that notification under section 4 of the Act was duly issued on 06.03.2010 and endorsement to that effect was duly issued on 07.09.2010, whereafter the petitioners filed their objections, which were duly considered by the Collector before passing the award on 11.10.2010---This simple fact alone pointed out that the petitioners took part in acquisition process and that the Reference petition before the Collector filed on 26.10.2011 was merely an afterthought, perhaps intended to get more money for their land---Moreover, it was also an admitted position that no appeal, as required under section 18-B of the Act, was filed by the petitioners against the said award---Petitioners realized the fault in their legal strategy, therefore, impugned the Order dated 02.11.2011 of the Collector rather than that of the Referee Court before the High Court---However, the High Court realized this and quite rightly held that the challenge to the Collector's Order was time barred and attracted the doctrine of laches---Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.