QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.--- Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Pir Ishfaq Ahmed, petitioner, is seeking the following declarations/ directions; "I. To declare the impugned and other notifications of the respondent No,1 for acquisition of the petitioner's landed property as illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect; II. To direct the respondents to de-notify the impugned acquisition and abandon the construction of the disputed drain in the stated land of the petitioner; and III. To grant any other remedy to which the petitioner is found fit in law, justice and equity."
2. In his writ petition, while claiming ownership of landed property in Khasra Nos,526/1, 526/2, 527/1 and 527/2 including other khasra numbers in Mouza Sherpao, Tehsil Tangi, District Charsadda, and selling some portion measuring about 02 kanals to one Fazalur-Rehman who constructed shop and a school by the name of Hayat Shaheed Model School, the petitioner pointed out that there was a dual road in front of the said property and that the petitioner had also constructed few shops on his own property alongside the said school and further that in between the dual road and the constructed area, including the school and shops of the petitioner, there was almost more than 22/25 feet open area. According to the petitioner, owner of the said school namely Fazal Rehman son of Said Karim had, allegedly, started intervention in his property in order to usurp the aforementioned open plot and used to move applications in that behalf to different authorities for quite some time, leading to demarcation of the said open area by the revenue authorities on a number of occasions, but every time the open area was found in the ownership of the petitioner.
However, in order to fulfill his design of usurping the said open area, the owner of the school managed to get notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as The Act of 1894) on 29.01.2016, and also under section 9 of the Act of 1994 on 04.10.2016, therein showing the purpose of acquisition as "dualization of Charsadda-Tangi road I/C Uthmanzai By pass Mouza Sherpao, Tehsil Tangi, District Charsadda", although it was evident from the record that the purpose of acquisition was construction of drain in the said open plot. The petitioner claimed that there was no need, whatsoever, for construction of a drain in the said area as there was no considerable constructed property and already a drain existed at the back of the above named school and that the school belonged to private person which did not fall within the purview of "Public Purpose", for invoking the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, and that inhabitants of the local area had also protested construction of the drain, falling in an irrigation channel at a distance of few meters, which could pollute the irrigation water and consequently damage their crops and the environment. In addition to the above stated objection to the acquisition of the 14 marla land for the purpose, the petitioner also raised other factual objections with regard to location of the drain, not mentioning the actual purpose of construction of drain in the notification and the drain going to destroy the whole open plot and constructed shops of the petitioner.
3. In their joint para-wise comments, respondents Nos,1 and 2 i,e, Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Collector, District Charsadda and Secretary/Senior Member Board of Revenue (SMBR), Peshawar, pointed out that process of acquisition was initiated at the request of Deputy Director
(PKHA) vide his letter dated 12.01.2016 and that the acquisition was made for construction of drainage line along with dual road and further that notification had been issued for construction of the drain as part of dualization of Charsadda-Tangi road. The respondents also pointed out that no application was moved or objections raised by the petitioner at any forum, and that the land had been acquired after completing all the codal formalities as per provision of Land Acquisition Act and further that the land had been acquired for public purpose.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG and learned counsel for the subsequently impleaded respondents No,3 heard; and record perused.
5. Notwithstanding plea of the respondents that acquisition of the land measuring 14 marla was for the public purpose namely "dualization of Charsadda-Tangi road I/C Utmanzai Bypass Mouza Sherpao, Tehsil Tangi, District Charsadda", as construction of drain was also a part of dualization of Charsadda-Tangi road, the petitioner had the alternate adequate remedy of raising objection to the acquisition of land under section 5-A of the Act of 1894 within 30 days of the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 and also another remedy of raising objection under section 9 of the Act of 1894 after issuance of notice under the said section of law. The petitioner, however, missed not only the opportunity of availing the remedy of raising objection to the acquisition on both the occasions, but also failed to require the Collector to make reference under section 18 of the Act of 1894 after award under section 11 of the Act of 1894 was announced on 24.10.2016; and instead, moved the instant writ petition, which was not maintainable in view of the other adequate remedies, referred to above, available to the petitioner.
6. Apart from not disclosing and not assailing the award under section 11 of the Act of 1894 dated 24.10.2016 in his writ petition lodged on 20.03.2017, and only calling in question notifications under sections 4 and 9 of the Act of 1894, the petitioner, nevertheless, admitted issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 on 29.01.2016 and that of notification under section 9 of the Act of 1894 on 04.10.2016; therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to non publication of notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, albeit a copy of the said notification forwarded to the Manager, Government Printing Press, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, for publication in the Government Gazette, would hardly be of any significance.
7. The contentions of the petitioner in his writ petition with regard to the alleged design of owner of the school to usurp his property and several demarcation proceedings taking place in that behalf would point towards actual grievance of the petitioner about apportionment of the compensation amount, which is also amenable to the jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Court under section 30 of the Act of 1894. Needless to say that factual controversies with regard to location and need of the drain, the drain causing damage to the open plot and shops of the petitioner and polluting the irrigation water are, indeed, beyond the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
8. As such, there is no substance in the writ petition seeking to invoke the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The D writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.