' SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.--- Contentions of the petitioner as contained in this constitutional petition are that he is a tenant under Jaffar Mehdi on land situated in Mouza Doaaba. The respondents were bent upon dispossessing the petitioner and damaging his standing crops on the pretext of constructing a ring road around Muzaffargarh City without resorting to the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. No notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued nor were the notices issued to the petitioner under section 9 of the Act. According to respondents' own assessm ent cost of rice and sugarcane crops and vegetable existing on the land in possession of the petitioner was Rs,3,88,631. He was, however, paid Rs,68,344 only. The remaining amount was being grabbed illegally. It was prayed that respondents Nos.2 to 5 may be directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs,8,16,139 to the petitioner.
2. Reiterating the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that highhandedness was being done by the respondents. The petitioner and other aggrieved poor persons were being deprived of their valuable lands and property. Without adopting the prescribed procedure, any action done by the respondents was illegal. The proceedings if any conducted by the respondents were fake and based on fraud. It was submitted that the petitioner be allowed to file rejoinder and the asked for direction be passed to the respondents.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents contended that proper notification under section 4 of the said Act was published in the official Gazette. Notices as required under section 9 of the Act were issued. After observance of all the necessary legal requirements, award had been announced. It was submitted that compensation has also been paid to the petitioner and the landlord. Relying on the authorities reported in 2008 SCM R 314 and 2002 SCM R 549 it was urged that since remedy was available to the petitioner by way of a reference to be submitted under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and he could also file objections if any which were not so filed, therefore, this petition was incompetent.
4. Photo copies of the proceedings have been placed on record by the respondents, which substantiate contention of learned counsel for the respondents that proceedings under the aforesaid Act were carried out by the concerned authorities. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that prescribed proceedings had not been conducted in this case is devoid of force. No finding can be recorded about fakeness or illegality of these proceedings because the petitioner has failed to challenge anyone of such proceedings. Rather it appears that either he omitted to do so in good faith or concealed the same with mala fide. It has been held in Syed Arshad All and others v.
Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. 2008 SCM R 314 that if a right is conferred by a Statute and complete mechanism is provided for enforcement of the same, no occasion could arise to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court which was barred under Article 212 by virtue of the same.
5. Since complete mechanism is incorporated in the Land Acquisition Act for redressal of grievance of the persons aggrieved of the acquisition proceedings and since for the reasons best known to the petitioner no such proceeding has been specifically assailed in this constitutional petition, the same is found to be incompetent in light of the above referred case-law.
6. I have however noticed that according to respondents' own assessment, the cost of affected crops of Muhammad Ramzan petitioner as is evident from Annexure "A" issued by respondent No,1 was Rs,3,88,631. When confronted with this document and inquired as to whether this compensation has been paid to the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rs,68,344 had been paid to the petitioner and the remaining amount had been disbursed to the landlord.
7. This fact was vehemently controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner who produced affidavit of Syed Raza Mehdi landlord indicating that the landlord had no objection if compensation to which the petitioner was entitled was paid to him.
8. No receipt could be shown to this Court in support of the fact that the aforesaid total amount has been paid to the petitioner or the landlord.
9. In exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction, this Court is not supposed to hold any inquiry or carry out rendition of accounts. The purpose shall be served if this job is assigned to the Land Acquisition Collector.
10. For what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed.Copy of this petition shall be forwarded to respondent No,4 who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, hold inquiry about the genuineness of Annexure "A", and find out as to whether the total compensation stands paid to the petitioner or not? And if not, it shall be ensured that the same is paid to the petitioner. The inquiry proceedings shall be completed within one month and copy of the same shall be provided to the petitioner for availing of any further, remedy according to law.