SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J.---Javed Akhtar and five others, petitioners, seek the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 99 or the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer: "It is respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously please to:
(i) Declare that the impugned Notificati ons under section of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide No,1024 dated 16.09.2016, No,4699 dated 21.05.2018 and proceeding under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are illegal, unlawful, arbitrary , discriminatory , withou t jurisdiction, void ab-initio and having no legal effect upon the rights of petitioners.
(ii) Declare that the entire acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents are unlawful, arbitrary and unsustainable or non-compliance of the mandatory statutory provisions and purpose of the acquisition is not for the benefit of the general public being time barred.
(iii) Declare that acquisition of graveyard is without lawful justification, arbitrary and just for facilitation to certain loyal persons and does not cover the objective of welfare for general public.
(iv) Declare that the respondents have committed discrimination against petitioner s, as respondents have already de-notified notification of the same locality through No, Acq/1821-26 dated 25.04.2018.
(v) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted."
2. In essence, the grievance of the petitio ners is that the respondents have initiated proceedings under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Notification No,1024 dated 16.09.2016, which are illegal and against the law in order to deprive the petitioners from their land under the garb of graveyard due to influence of local MPA and District Member , as the petitioners were their opponents in the elections.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of record would reveal that the present petitioners have earlier filed separate Writ Petition No,85-A/2017 and Writ Petition No,96-A/2017 before this Court, which were disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2017 in the following terms.
"After arguments at some length, when confronted with the assertion in the writ petition with regard to filing of objection petition by the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners agreed to the proposal that let such objection petition be decided by the authority i,e, Deputy Commissioner / Land Acquisition Collector , Abbottabad (respondent No,2) in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and then rendering a decision, with reasons, on the objection petition, pending before the authority , at the earliest, but in no case later than a fortnight from the receipt of this order ."
The petitioners herein once again filed their separate writ petitions bearing W.P No,862-A12017 and W.P No,892- A/2017 on the same grounds, which were subsequently dismissed through a common judgment dated 14.11.2017.
This Court would like to reproduce herein below the operating part of the said judgment for the sake of convenience and ready reference: "True that the Land Acquisition Act is a confiscatory statute designed to take properties of the citizens through coercive measures but for adequate consideration and public purposes. The said mode is being recognized by the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 24. It is not the case of the petitioner that the purpose for which the property has been acquired, does not fall within the mischief of public purpose. Their only grievance is that the selection of the site is against the ground realities. The selection of site is the sole discretion of the acquiring department. It is for them to select a site suitable and feasible according to their demand/requirement, the High Court while exercising discretion for the acquiring department regarding the selection of site unless the same is established to be based on mala fide, against the public interest or will have adverse effect on environment or ecology . In the present case, the record reveals that the sites have been selected after due deliberation with the elected representative of the locality . The allegations that the selection of the property of the petitioner is not sustainable and some other land which is the ownership of politically . Influential members of the society , has been left out, may have some weight but can't be decided by the Court under constitutio nal jurisdiction as the same are essentially disputed question of facts. For what has been discussed above, both the writ petitions being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed."
Being dissatisfied with the above mentioned decision of this Court, petitioners Nos,7 to 9 filed Civil Petition No,4777 of 2017 before the august Apex Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.02.2018, in the following terms: "The land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired for the purpose of a grave yard, which is a public purpose.
They challenged the said acquisition through a Constitution petition before the learned High Court primarily on the grounds that the area surrounding the land in issue is all residential and constru cted, as such, the same is not compatible for the required purpose, and that the petitioners owned and possessed only the land in issue which they require for construction of their house. Moreover , mala fide is also taken as one of the grounds. The learned High Court dismissed the petition as the suit ability to acquire the property for public purpose is the jurisdiction and domain of the acquiring authority and the petitioners have not been able to satisfy the Court that the property in question is unsuitable. As far as the allega tion of mala fide is concerned, the same is general in nature and has not been substantiated by the petitioners. The other allegation that the Chairman of the Union Council was instrumental in saving his property as well as property of his relatives, and therefore, the property of the petitioners has been acquired, is also not substantiated. Therefore, no interference is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed."
5. It may be mentioned here that in order to resolve the controversy amicably , this Court has appointed a local commission for spot inspection in presenc e of the parties with a view to ascertain feasibility of the land in question for the purpose of graveyard or otherwise. The report of commission suggests that there exists an old graveyard towards north and south of the property in question and there are houses constructed in the vicinity towards the west and graves are also existed on the spot and a path leading to two houses constructed over there. In view of the report of local commission, it becomes clear that there exists old graveyards in three directions of the property in question and the same is feasible for the said purpose. The local commission has also mentioned in his report that landowners of two 'khasra' numbers i,e, 4888/1 and 4890/1 have not challenged the acquisition of their land or made party in the present writ petition. No discrimination, as alleged by the petitioners, has been committed by the respondents, if any other property is de-notified by the acquiring department. Moreover , the alleged discrimination could not be determined without recording evidence, which is not admissible in writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Similarly , the contention of the petitioners that the acquiring department has failed to complete the acquisition proceedings within one year, therefore, the Notification under subsection (1) of section 4, in view of the amendment of section 4, shall stand revoked is without force because it will have no bearing on the case of the petitioners as the said amendment seems to be promulgated only in order to avoid escalation in the prices of the acquired land so as to safeguard the interest of the landowners. All these objections could be taken by the petitioners at an appropriate stage before the competent forum. In short, the matter in issue has already been decided up to the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, and, this Court considers that the petitioners are agitating the same grounds in the present writ petition which could not be reopened in the present writ petition. The petitioners could not make out a case for interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction and the present writ petition being misconceived is liable to he dismissed.
6. Accordingly , the present writ petition is dismissed.