' ZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, J.-The District Government needed land measuring 11 marlas in khasra Nos.
437, 440 & 441 of Village Gallat Tehsil Ghazi, District Haripur for public purpose, namely, construction of "Link Road Gharangh Kalan-cum-Srikot". Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was issued by the District. Officer (Revenue & Estate)/Collector, Haripur vide No, 406 dated 23.10.2004.
2. In response to this notification, Muhammad Zarin and two others-owners, respondents Nos. 1-3 herein, presented some objections to the Collector. However on .7.9.2005 they filed suit No, 96/1 of 2005 for a declaration to the effect that notification u/s. 4 of the Act ibid issued by the District.
Collector Haripur in respect of acquisition of land was illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect; that action taken by the Collector invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act was mala fide and result of conspiracy of Muhammad Miskeen and others petitioners and that the District Collector alongwith TMO Ghazi be restrained from acquiring the land.
3. Muhammad Miskeen etc., petitioners when summoned -on 27.11.2005, submitted an application under Order VII, Rules 10/11. CPC praying that the suit may either be returned or dismissed on the ground that acquisition proceedings could not be challenged through a civil suit and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction.
4. Mr. Nehmat Ullah Shah, Civil Judge, Haripur who seized of the case after hearing the parties/their counsel held that the respondents/owners could object to the acquisition proceedings before the Collector who alone was competent to adjudicate upon the matter; that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, therefore he vide order dated 15.2.2006 returned the plaint under Order VII, rule 10, CPC for presentation to the proper forum.
5. Feeling aggrieved the owners filed revision No, 2/CR of 2006 before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Haripur, who .After hearing the parties/their counsel held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to examine the vires of acquisition proceedings. Consequently, he vide judgment dated 5.7.2006 set aside the said impugned order and remanded the suit to the Trial Court for inviting written statement and proceedings with the case in accordance with law.
6. Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition (233/07) and called in question the judgment of the, learned Additional District Judge-1, Haripur on the ground that the suit before the Civil Court challenging notification u/s. 4 of the Act ibid was neither competent nor entertainable either on the ground of mala fides or any other ground; that the objections regarding the acquisition could be raised only before the Collector; that the learned Additional District Judge-I, Haripur has not correctly appreciated the facts and law involved in the case and, therefore, erred in law.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record:
8. The only point falling for determination is "whether a suit lies to question a notification under section 4 of the Act regarding acquisition of land for public purpose"?. The answer is in negative.
We may point out that section 5-A of the Act provides a specific procedure giving the objector an opportunity to put up his case. It gives the objector a chance to place his objections before the Collector, who shall give an opportunity of being heard to the objector either in person or by pleader and after making the requisite enquiry submit the case for the decision of the Provincial Government/Commissioner together with the proceedings held by him and a report containing his recommendations on the objections. It merits a mention that the decision of the Provincial Government/Commissioner on the objections has been made final.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the Provincial Government/Commissioner could not decide the issue of mala fide. In our opinion, section 5-A of the Act ibid is complete answer to this argument. A special method of redress has been provided in that section and a special Tribunal created for giving that redress. It is well-settled that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has created a special jurisdiction and provided a special remedy for persons aggrieved with anything done in the exercise of that jurisdiciton. The general rule is that when jurisdiction has been conferred on a Special Court for investigation of a particular matter, such jurisdiction is exclusive.
10. In this view of the matter, we hold that whatever may have been the objections that shall be adjudicated upon by the authority mentioned in section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which debars a Civil Court from questioning the propriety of a notification under section 4 of the Act. The objectors/respondents have to go, to the Collector and the findings of the Provincial Government/Commissioner on their objections shall be conclusive.
11.
11. This being so, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Haripur is set aside and order dated 15.2.2006 of learned Civil Judge, Haripur stands restored. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs while CM No, 03/09 for grant of temporary injunction having become infructuous is dismissed as such.