' IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.--- Through the instant civil revision, petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment of Additional District Judge-III, dated 17-10-2006, whereby appeal against the judgment of Civil Judge, Kohat dated 9-2-2004 was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are, that petitioners instituted a civil suit against the respondents, whereas, the Award dated 10-3-1986, was made impugned, with the prayer, that the suit property acquired by respondents, measuring 144 kanals, out of 1646 kanals, comprised therein Khasra Nos.1012, 1013, Moza Bezadi Kohat be declared as the result of fraud, illegal and without jurisdiction.
3. Further prayed thereof for possession of the acquired land and in alternative, prayed for market price of the acquired land to be paid by the respondents
4. The respondents contested the suit,. And submitted their written statement, whereby numerous legal and factual objections were raised there to the maintainability of the suit.
5. The learned trial Court, framed therein the suit the respective issues, arising out therefrom the divergent pleadings of the parties.
6. On conclusion of the trial, the suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. Petitioners went in appeal but the same was dismissed too by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Kohat, through its impugned judgment, hence, the petitioners have assailed it through the instant revision petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned judgment is against law and facts on record; that it is a case of misreading and non-reading of evidence, fallacious, extraneous and illegal; that the market price determined by the respondents was too low as compared to the prevailing market price at the time of acquisition; that petitioners were discriminated, as similar land, had been acquired by respondents, even so, through the same Award, at much higher rate than that of the petitioners; that the whole proceedings, conducted thereof by the respondents in order to acquire the suit-land, was illegal, as no notice of such acquisition was served upon the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, urged that, no any illegality or irregularity could be pointed out in the impugned Award passed by a Competent Authority in this regard, which had passed thereafter fulfilling all the required conditions, attached thereto; that the petitioners had never raised any objection, during the acquisition process and had received the compensation amount without any protest, could not be permitted to agitate a past and close transaction before the civil Court, supported but with vehemence, the impugned judgment.
9. I heard both the learned counsel and anxiously considered their arguments in view of the evidence placed on record.
10. The suit property, had been acquired by the respondents, for public purposes, well mentioned therein the Award passed by the respondents, under the provisions of N.-W.F.P., Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978.
11. It is to be kept in mind that the suit-land had not acquired thereunder the provisions of the Land.
Acquisition Act, 1894, but it had acquired under the provisions contained thereunder N.-W.F.P., Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978, which is a special enactment, meant particularly for acquisition of land, required by the Authorities for development and establishment of towns in Urban Areas, and have super imposing status over the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, being a meant for general acquisition of land. Whereas section 49 of the N.-W.F.P., Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978, exclude the operation of and applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is read as:--- "Section 49 of N.-W.F.P., Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978. Liability to acquisition;--- Notwithstanding, anything contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), or in any other law for the time being in force, all land in the urban area including buildings and building sites shall be liable to acquisition for the purposes of, and in the manner provided in this Ordinance."
12. The available record reveals that respondents had fulfilled all the legal requirement before passing of the final Award as stipulated thereunder the provisions of section 52 of the N.-W.F.P., U.P.O., 1978, and the required notices were duly published. The petitioners had never objected on the mode of publication of the notices, nor had raised any such objections even in their statements recorded before the learned trial Judge that they had not been served with notice thereunder subsection (3) of section 52 of the N.-W.F.P., U.P.O, 1978. As such, the petitioners could not be allowed to raise a new plea, at revisional stage, not agitated before the learned lower Court.
Reliance be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered therein the case of "Khan and others v. Province of Punjab and others" (2005 SCM R 1135).
13. Section 55 of the N.-W.F.P., U.P.O. 1978, described thereof the procedure for determination of the market value of the land acquired thereof as:--- "Section 55. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.--- In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Ordinance, the Collector shall take into consideration---
(i) The market value of the land to be determined on the basis of two years average sale price of land similarly situated and put to similar use preceding the date of Notification under subsection
(1) of section 50;
(ii) The damage, if any, sustained by the person interested by reasons of dispossession of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land;
(iii) The damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land by reasons of severing such land from the 'other land;
(iv) The damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
(v) The reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to change of residence or place of business, if the person interested is compelled to change his residences or place of business in consequence of the acquisition of the land."
14. The respondents acquired the suit land, through an Award dated 10-3-1986, some of the land owners/interested persons, challenged the C said Award, and claimed an enhance amount, but the impugned Award remained intact upto the apex Court.
15. The petitioners, did not raised any objection, therein during the course of acquisition, and did not prefer any appeal as per the provisions D contained thereunder section 60 of the N.-W.F.P., U.P.O, 1978, which is reads as:--- ' Section 60. Appeal against Award.--- (1) The Board or any person aggrieved by an Award of the Collector made under section 53, may, within one month of such Award, appeal to the Commissioner. Where the affected party had no intimation of the Award, the appeal may be filed within six weeks of the Award.
(2) The Commissioner may, after giving the Board and the persons affected by the award an opportunity of submitting any objection to the appeal and after hearing them, make such order as he may deem fit.
16. The impugned Award had passed on 10-3-1986, while the instant suit was instituted by the petitioners, in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kohat, on 9-3-1989, after 3 years of passing of the impugned Award.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while answering to the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court, relied thereupon, the judgment of this Court, delivered therein the case of "Said Umar Shah v.
Hasham and others" (PLD 1978 Peshawar 3), whereas, it was held as:--- "Plaintiff not having been served with notice under section 9, Act I of 1894, not required to move Commissioner under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and could move civil Court for the purpose of Civil suit, held, maintainable."
18. There shall be no 2nd opinion to the proposition that the civil Courts are forum having plenary jurisdiction, but the provisions of section 9, C.P.C., 1908, which conferred jurisdiction upon the civil Courts to be read and give effect to in its true perspective, and whenever, for a particular relief a special procedure and special forum was provided in any other law, the procedure, provided thereunder the special law before the Special Tribunal or Authority shall be given preference and recourse to civil Courts be avoided as section 9 of the C.P.C., 1908; bars and excludes the jurisdiction of civil Courts, in matters, whereof, special procedure and Special Tribunal or Authorities, were constituted and established for the redressal of a particular grievance. The facts of the judgment cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to the instant case, as in the prevailing circumstances of the case, petitioners were duly served with the required notices, published thereof, before acquisition of land by the respondents, strictly in accordance with the law, envisaged thereunder the provision of N.-W.F.P., Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978.
19. Apart from, the petitioners had not taken the plea of non-service of the required notices, prior or during the acquisition process in their pleadings, and have raised this plea for the first time at revisional stage. Moreover, the petitioners had received the compensation amount without protest even if it is presumed that the compensation amount fixed there through the Award was received by the petitioners thereunder protest even then, the petitioners are precluded to impugned the said Award by instituting a civil suit, as they failed to avail the remedy by filing the appeal thereunder section 60 of the Act. In case of "Zahurul Hag v. Republic of Pakistan" (PLD 1960 SC 113) it was held as:--- "In these circumstances the suit of the respondents for the recovery of part of the compensation amount from the petitioners would not lie in the civil Court because they had failed to avail themselves of the various remedial provisions of the Act.
' After all it is well established that if by an Act of the Legislature a special jurisdiction is created which provides for a special remedy then such jurisdiction would be exclusive and civil Courts would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter for which provision has been made in the special enactment."
20. It is by now settled principle of law, that special law supersedes the general law. When a particular procedure was provided by a special H law for the redressal of a particular grievance, the special procedure provided therein the special statute shall be followed.
21. The N.-W.F.P., Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978, is a special enactment, whereas a particular procedure for redressal of any grievance, arising there out from any act or omission in regard to acquisition of land being provided thereunder the Act, shall be followed in its letter and spirit. A person, who remained indolent and went in a deep slumber, could not be given premium for its indolence, to re-open a past and closed matter in a civil Court.
22. No any patent illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel in the impugned judgment, while the concurrent findings on facts, rendered thereby both the learned lower Courts are J based on elaborate, reasoning and construction of correct facts could not be interfered herein by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Reliance be placed on Moulvi Muhammad Azeem v. Alhaj Mehmood Khan Bangash and another (2010 SCM R 817).
23. In view of the reason given hereinabove, no merit is attached to the instant revision petition, accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.