Law: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)

Section: 18, 30, 31

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) Ss. 18, 30 & 31---Acquisition of land---Reference to Court---Limitation---Non-service of notices under Ss. 9 & 12(2)---Date of knowledge---Jurisdiction of Referee Court---Appellants/landowners were aggrieved by dismissal of their references by Referee Judge on the ground that the references made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector were barred by time---Held: Appellants/landowners had never been served with notices under S.9 or S.12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as they were not recorded as owners at the time of acquisition---They came to know of the acquisition only when public notices were published in newspapers or when they approached the revenue offices---They promptly instituted civil suits and thereafter sought references when they were informed that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction---Where no real effort was made to serve landowners who were abroad or otherwise absent, the period of limitation was to run from the date of knowledge, particularly to avoid manifest injustice---References had been wrongly treated as being governed exclusively by S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the exclusion of Ss.30 & 31 thereof---Referee Court assumed jurisdiction to decide limitation which the statute reserved for the Collector and which, in any event, had become academic once the references had been made---Referee Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it to adjudicate the rival claims to compensation and acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by non-suiting appellants/landowners on an extraneous ground---High Court set aside the orders passed by the Referee Court in the references and remanded the references made by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector under S.18 read with Ss.30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Referee Court for decision afresh---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.        2020 CLC 1202; 2020 CLC 1916; 2004 MLD 314; 1994 MLD 2339; 2005 MLD 168; Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. v. First Assistant Judge, Hyderabad PLD 1960 Kar. 826 and Bashir Ahmad v. Collector, Multan PLD 1962 Lah. 292 ref.…