MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.--- The petitioner has questioned the orders passed by the hierarchy working under the F.C.R. Regarding acquisition of his land and determination of its compensation by declaring the same to be unlawful, illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has also asked for awarding of compensation to the tune of Rs,4,45,000 per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges.
2. The respondent No,1 had acquired an area of 724 kanals of land situated in Darra Adam Khel for National Highway Authority, the respondent No,4, for the construction of approach Road for Kohat Tunnel. An Award dated 8-6-1998 was announced by the then Deputy Commissioner/Political Agent, F.R., Kohat through negotiation with the landowner as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not extended in the area. The compensation of the acquired land was fixed as Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) per kanal. The petitioner impugned the same before the hierarchy working under the FCR. The petitioner then impugned the same through Constitutional Petition No,227 of 2001 which was disposed of with the consent of the parties that D.C.O. Kohat/empowered Political Agent F.R. Kohat, (Political Agent) will adjudicate upon the matter between the parties after providing them a chance of hearing. The relevant part of the judgment dated 21.4.2004 of this Court reads as under:- - ' We direct the petitioner to submit an application to D.C.O. Kohat empowered Political Agent for F.R.
Kohat arraying the National Highway Authority, respondent No,4 as party to the said application.
The D.C.O. Kohat empowered Political Agent for F.R. Kohat shall adjudicate upon the matter, summon the National High Authority the acquiring/purchasing department and all other concerned and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties should reassess the market value of the acquired land keeping in view the prevailing rates in the preceding year than the date of taking physical possession, the future prospects and potentiality of the acquired land and shall determine the rate of compensation afresh under his powers to adjudicate upon dispute of civil nature under F.C.R. Since this is an old matter the D.C.O. Kohat empowered Political Agent F.R. Kohat is further directed to conclude the adjudication within six months from the date of submission of application by the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
3. Then the petitioner after some time also moved a C.M. No,12 of 2004 for implementation of the above said judgment. Once again directions were given by this Court while disposing of said civil miscellaneous vide its judgment dated 15-6-2005. Resultantly, the Political Agent appointed the council of elders under section 8 of the F.C.R. For resolution of the dispute in the light of directions of this Court. A verdict dated 10-8-2005 was accordingly given by the council by considering all aspects of the case and by keeping in view all the grievances of petitioner. The amount of compensation determined vide award dated 8-6-1998 was maintained to be at par with the prevailing market price of the property at the time of acquisition, however, damages for severance of the property of petitioner into two blocks were also awarded in addition to the said compensation. Damage sustained by the property at the time of acquisition was also awarded along with 8% per annum in addition to that. Political Agent also appointed a technical committee to resolve the other grievances of the petitioner. The Political Agent then approved the verdict of the counsel of elders vide its decision dated 12-11-2005. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved, approached the Commissioner F.C.R., F.R. Kohat who vide its order dated 20-5-2006 dismissed the same and his revision before the Tribunal F.C.R. Also met the same fate vide order dated 29-11-2008 but with an addition of 6% interest in favour of petitioner.
' The petitioner is once again before this Court though instant writ petition by impugning all the above said orders of the hierarchy working under the F.C.R.
4. The petitioner in support of his claim submitted that the determination of compensation for his acquired property was not in accordance with law and compensation for lands acquired for different telephone exchanges in the adjoining locality were not considered by the council of elders. He further submitted that his acquired property, having the future prospects, was of the same potential and market value as the properties acquired for said telephone exchanges. He under the law, was required to be compensated according to the market price prevailing in the area and as such, the respondents have not acted under the law and have erroneously exercised their jurisdiction. Acquiring department has not followed the approved plan at the spot for the construction of road which has resulted into severance of his remaining property into two blocks and because of providing no culverts and alternate access/approach/both the portions so severed, have become useless and worthless. Having no channel/outlet for discharge of water, the hill torrents have totally damaged the remaining property of the petitioner. The construction of approach road has become permanent hurdle in his way to approach and utilize his coal mines because of no alternate passage/way for the mines.
5. As against that, the learned counsel for NHA, the acquiring department, submitted that the petitioner has availed all his remedies available under the F.C.R. And his instant constitutional petition being based on factual controversy is not maintainable. His next contention was that his entire grievances were addressed by the council of elders and the verdict of the council was also approved by the Political Agent and concurred by the appellate and revisional forum. The petitioner has also failed to prove before the council of elders, the higher potential and market value and the nature of his land was similar to that of lands acquired for the above referred telephone exchanges. He further submitted that compensation determined by the award was fixed with the consent of all the affected landowners and none else except the petitioner has objected the same. It would be a sufficient proof that it was the market value of the lands at the time of acquisition.
6. The petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent were heard and record of the case was perused.
7. Record of the case would reveal that for the construction of an approach road for Kohat Tunnel some lands situated in Darra Adam Khel were acquired through negotiation vide Award No, 3260- 62/Poll /IHP/D-A dated 8-6-1998 as the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was not extended in the FATA in terms of Article-247(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The compensation for the acquired property was determined by the Acquiring Officer i,e, Deputy Commissioner/ Political Agent, F.R. Kohat @ Rs,1,00,000 (One lac) per kanal. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is the determination of fair compensation of his acquired property for which he has mainly relied upon the previous acquisitions for construction of three telephone exchanges and claimed that he is also entitled to the same compensation of Rs,4,45,000 per kanal along with compulsory acquisition charges. The record of the case would reveal that for the purpose of determination of compensation in the light of directions given by this Court in Constitutional Petition No,227 of 2001, the council of elders after hearing both the parties i,e, the petitioner and the acquiring department and by considering all the aspects of the case, approved the compensation of land determined by the D.C./PA, F.R., Kohat vide his award dated 8-6-1998.
The council also considered the aspect of severance of the property of petitioner into two blocks and determined a compensation of Rs,5,00,000 (Five lacs) for the purpose. The council also determined compensation of Rs,4,50,000 for the damage sustained by the property and it also held the petitioner entitle to get interest @ 8%. The Political Agent then approved the findings of the counsel of elders vide his order dated 12-11-2005. The petitioner then exhausted all the remedies of appeal and revision before F.C.R. Hierarchy and the verdict given by the council of elders was upheld by all the forums working under the F.C.R.
8. The submissions made by the petitioner before this Court would reveal that he failed to bring on record any such material suggesting that the lands acquired for the purpose of telephone exchanges and the land owned by him were of the same potential and market value. Similarly, there is nothing to reflect that both the above said properties were situated adjacent to each other or in the same locality. The assertion made by the learned counsel for the respondent was even not objected to by the petitioner that the telephone exchange is situated in the main village of Darra Adam Khel which is a very valuable property as compared to the land of petitioner which is situated in the foot of hills in the south of village. Mere claim of the petitioner in this regard without any substance available on the record would not be sufficient for his entitlement for a higher price.
However, the questions as to whether the construction of road was in accordance with the approved plan or whether alternate passage/way was necessary for the petitioner could not be answered by a forum considering the determination of compensation of the property acquired and similarly this court too cannot step in to answer such controverted facts in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
9. The record would further reflect that the matters asserted before this Court were dealt with by the fora working under the hierarchy of F.C.R. And there is nothing on the record to establish that findings given by the competent authority were erroneous on the question of fact or law or the authorities competent to determine the compensation have unlawfully exercised their jurisdiction tainted with mala fides or collusion. Such concurrent findings are normally immune from the scrutiny in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court. The controversy put before this Court is nothing but a compendium of controverted facts alone. Mere factual controversy, in our opinion, cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
10. Quite apart from this, the matter between the parties is relating to a dispute of Federal Administered Tribal Area, exclusively within the domain of a hierarchy provided in the F.C.R.. The jurisdiction of Supreme Court and the High Courts is completely ousted by clause-7 of Article-247 of the Constitution. The apex Court of the country has time and again given its verdicts in this regard like in the case of Qaum Bangesh v. Quam Turi (1991 SCM R 2400), Shaukat Khan v. APA (PLD 2002 SC Page 526). In a recent pronouncement dated 13-5-2010 in C.Ps. Nos.197-P and 198-P of 2009 titled Kabul Khan an others v. Muhammad Umar Khan and others the apex Court has once again reiterated its stance.
11. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. So in this view of the matter, we are not inclined to step in. Hence, this petition being meritless is dismissed as such.