Footnote

-----S. 18-Land acquisition---Reference---Limitation---If any person made reference/objection to the

Collector at the time of announcement of an award then he/she was obliged to file application within six
weekh from the date of award announced by the Collector---If landlord was served by the Collector then
reference should have been filed within sit weeks after receipt of notice---If at the time of
announcement of award landlord was not served with notice then he was required to filt reference
within six months. [p. 101] A

Case Details
1) Citation 2015 CLC 97
2) Judges= Muhammad Ejaz swati and Jamal Khan mandokhail
3) Case
SABZAL and 9 others---------------- petitioners
Versus
Collector/DC and 2 others---------- respondants
4) Constitutional Petition 70 of 2011
5) Decided on 30th October 2014

Case Summary
In the case, the petitioners challenged an order dated December 21, 2010, by the District Collector of
Gwadar, rejecting their application concerning land acquisition by the Government of Pakistan in 2006
and 2007 for a Joint Defence Complex in Gwadar. They sought to have the order overturned and their
objections referred to the District Court of Gwadar for a decision on the merits according to law. The
contested land, totaling 13,570 acres across various locations in Gwadar, was acquired over 2006 and
2007, with compensation duly paid and possession transferred by May 15, 2008.

The petitioners, having initially raised no objections, filed a reference on March 31, 2010, which was
rejected as time-barred and for having accepted compensation without earlier protest. The petitioners
argued the acquisition process was flawed, citing irregularities in the settlement and notification
processes, and claiming the land was undervalued. They contended that the Deputy
Commissioner/Collector lacked authority to reject their reference, insisting it should have been
forwarded to the District Judge for review.

Conversely, the respondents maintained that the petitioners had no grounds to challenge the
acquisition, having accepted full compensation. They defended the acquisition's legality and procedural
compliance, deeming the constitutional petition inadmissible.

Both parties presented their arguments, with the petitioners focusing on alleged procedural and
valuation errors, and the respondents asserting the acquisition was conducted lawfully and the petition
was untimely and without merit. Upon review, the Court considered the provisions of Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which outlines the procedure and conditions under which an aggrieved
person can seek judicial review of a land acquisition award. The Court noted the petitioners had indeed
accepted compensation, which typically precludes further objections unless filed within specific
timeframes stipulated by the Act. The Court found the petitioners had not only accepted the
compensation without objection but also failed to timely file their reference, rendering it ineligible for
consideration under the Act's strict timelines for such objections.

The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations on filing references against
acquisition awards, noting the petitioners had not sought to excuse their late filing through a formal
application for condonation of delay. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Deputy
Commissioner/Collector was within his rights to reject the time-barred reference. Citing precedent, it
reinforced that questions of limitation fall squarely within the Collector's jurisdiction, not that of the
referral Court.

The petition was dismissed, affirming the Collector's decision to reject the petitioners' reference as
beyond the permissible period for challenging the land acquisition award. This decision underscores the
critical nature of timeliness and procedural compliance in legal challenges to government actions.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court found that the petitioners' challenge against the order of the District Collector
of Gwadar, which had rejected their objections to the acquisition of land for a Joint Defence Complex,
was not maintainable on legal grounds. The core issues presented by the petitioners, including alleged
procedural irregularities and undervaluation of the acquired land, were overshadowed by the fact that
they had not adhered to the statutory requirements for filing such objections under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. Specifically, the petitioners failed to file their objections within the time limits prescribed by
the Act and had accepted compensation for the land without initial protest, which essentially barred
them from raising objections thereafter. The Court underscored that the jurisdiction to entertain
objections to land acquisition awards lies with the designated Reference Court (s/18) , provided that
such objections are filed within the statutory timelines and procedures. The Deputy
Commissioner/Collector's authority to reject the time-barred reference was affirmed, based on the
principle that the determination of questions of limitation is within the exclusive purview of the
Collector under the Act. The dismissal of the petition not only reaffirmed the importance of statutory
compliance in land acquisition matters but also highlighted the procedural gatekeeping role of the
Collector in filtering out untimely challenges to acquisition processes.