CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the land in question of the petitioners alongwith other land was acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land of the petitioner is measuring 59. Kanals, 3 Marlas which is situated in Khasra Nos. 1379 to 1384, 1389, 1390 & 1396. Notification was issued under section 4, under section 17(4) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 24.3.1998 and 2.7.1998 respectively. The petitions filed application before the respondent No. 8 for exemption of the land of the petitioners from the aforesaid notifications on the ground that the land of the petitioners is industrial unit on 10.7.1998. Thereafter the petitioners have filed applications before .
The Deputy Commissioner to the same effect on 27.7.1998. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 24.2.1998 in spite of the fact that the representative of the petitioners appeared before him and stated that the petitioners had already secured restraining order from the competent Civil Court. The petitioners thereafter filed applications before the respondents after the announcement of the award on 24.9.1998 and 16.11.1998. The respondents did not decide the application of the petitioners. The petitioners being filed this Constitutional petition with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, respectfully requested that the valuation may graciously be brought up in consideration of the location, future development of area and valuation on industrial use of the land.
It is further requested that the damage to industry of the petitioners and the demolition of the construction and closing of poultry farm, plantation and water tubewells etc. May also be warning and causing damage to Italian Computerized machinery and stocks may be ordered to be assessed.
The respondents be directed to compensate the pledged socks, which have been damaged, and major portion lost during demolition of building and forcible takeover without notice, during pendency of suit and notice in respect of taking further actions by the respondents."
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondents in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the petitioners did not receive any notice qua acquisition of the land of the petitioners under section 4, Section 17 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners come to know about the acquisition and filed application before the Land Acquisition Collector for exemption of the land of the petitioners as the petitioners have established and installed a factory over the land in question, who did not decide the. Same before announcement of the award. The representative of the petitioners also appeared before him and stated that the petitioners had secured a restraining order from the Civil Court, therefore, he had no authority to announce the award and proceed in the matter with regard to the land of the petitioners, therefore, award of the Land Acquisition Collector is without lawful authority. He further submits that the petitioners have filed various applications after the announcement of the award before the respondent but the respondents did not decide the same, therefore, petitioners are penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries.
He further submits that other co-villagers/inhabitants of the area in question had filed-reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in which the Referee Court has enhanced the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- instead of Rs. 80,000/- per Kanal vide judgment dated 25.9.2003. The petitioners cannot agitate the matter qua acquisition in case the compensation be enhanced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/-. He further submits that the Land Acquisition Collector has not given any compensation to the petitioners qua he structure constructed by the petitioners over the land in question alongwith machinery as is evident from the contents of the award vide para IV under the heading Super Structure.
3. The learned counsel of respondent No. 4 submits that the petition is filed by an unauthorized person as the Special Power of Attorney Riaz Ahmad is not authorized by the petitioners to file a suit as is evident from the contents of the Special Power-of-Attorney which authorized Riaz Ahmad.
Special Power-of-Attorney to pursue the matters on behalf of the petitioners with the banks. He further urges that respondent No. 2 is a private limited company and the petitioners have filed this petition without authorizing Riaz Ahmad by passing resolution of the Board of Directors. Therefore, Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed as filed by an unauthorized person. He further submits that the petitioners have alternative remedy to file a reference before the Referee Judge under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. He further urges that civil suit of the petitioners is pending adjudication before the Civil Court, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. He further urges that proceedings were initialed against the petitioners after proper service of the petitioners as is evident from Annexure-R/5 attached with the report and parawise comments of respondent No. 4. He further submits that total land was acquired by the respondents measuring 262-acres including the land of the petitioners under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Khasra No. 1396 was omitted and corrigendum was issued and supplementary award was also announced by the Land acquisition Collector on 31.7.2001 which is attached with the report and parawise comments as Annexure-R/IX. He further urges that petitioners have more than one alternative remedies, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
4. Mian Muzaffar Hussain, Legal Advisor of LDA submits that the writ petitioners have not mentioned a single word against the LDA Authorities with regard to the land in question acquired by the LDA Authorities. He further submits that the LDA Authorities has not acquired the land in question, therefore, LDA Authority is not a proper and necessary party in this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that this Court has ample jurisdiction in the interest of justice and fair play to enhance the compensation keeping in view the ground realities as the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector through the impugned awards is not in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He further submits that Land Acquisition Collector has determined the value of the land of the petitioners in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts, in support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:- Abdul Rehman vs. Province of West Pakistan (1987 CLC 67); Haderabad Development Authority vs. Karam Khan (1985 SCMR 45); Collector Quetta Pishin, Quetta vs. Habibullah (PLD 1970 Quetta 35); Sh. Manzoor Hussain vs. The Multan Improvement Trust, Multan (PLD 1972 Lahore 225); Fazalur Rehman vs. General alanager SIDB (1973 SCMR 225)] Malik Abdul Qayyum vs. Punjab Province etc. (PLD 1979 Lahore 853); Messrs Edulji Dinshaw vs. Deputy Commissioner (1980 CLC 2169); Collector Land Acquisition vs. Rokhan and others (PLD 1995 Peshawar 78); Muhammad Saeed vs. Collector Land Acquisition, Mansehra and 3 others (PLD 1996 Peshawar 22); Syed Masihul Islam vs. The Land Acquisition Collector, Rajanpur and others (1996 CLC 781).
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. The prayer clause clearly revels that the petitioners have filed this Constitutional petition for enhancement of the compensation determination of the compensation of the land in question acquired by the respondents, it is pertinent of mention here that the land in question was acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a special law,-which prescribes special machinery for determination of compensation under the provisions of the law special law i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is settled principle of law that when a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that particular manner, and not otherwise, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Atta Muhammad Qureshi vs. The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 1971 SC 61). It is also admitted fact that the petitioners have received a compensation and did not bring on record any document to show that the petitioners had received the compensation under protest. Mere filing an application after receiving the compensation does not come under the phrase under protest as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Muhammad's case (PLD 1967 S.C. 191). The petitioners have alternative remedy to file a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before a competent forum/competent Court, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case (PLD 1996 S.C. 246). in case the contents of the Constitutional petition and parawise comments are put in a juxta position then it brings the case in the area of disputed question of facts and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of facts in Constitutional jurisdiction as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younas Khan vs. Government of N.W.F.P, etc, (1973 SCMR 618). it is also admitted fact that civil suit is pending before the competent Court. !t is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character, it is a good ground not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners in view of the pendency of the civil suit before the competent Court as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ch. Tanbur Ahmed Siddiky vs. Province of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1968 S.C. 185). As mentioned above, 'he petitioners have more than one alternative remedies, therefore. Constitutional petition is not maintainable, it is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and facts, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Trustees of Port of Karachi vs. Muhammad Saleem (1994 S.C.M.R. 2213). The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioners are distinguished on facts and law qua the facts and circumstances of the present controversy in view of the pendency of- the civil suit as well as receiving the compensation by the petitioners either without protest as- none of the parties brought on record copes of the receipt of compensation received by the petitioners in terms of awards, therefore, this fact also brings the case under the phrase "disputed question of fact" which cannot be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. In view of what has been-discussed above, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable. The petitioners are well within their rights to avail the proper remedy before the competent Court/competent forum, which of-course, shall decide without being influenced by the observations of this Court in accordance with law.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.