Through this Appeal, filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the Appellants have challenged the validity of impugned order dated 24.01.2018 passed in W.P. No,151779/2018 by the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the petition filed by the Appellants challenging the Order No, DRA/985 dated 20.10.2017 passed by the Respondent No,2, the Punjab Gazette Notification No,RB/COMMR/7680 dated 14.11.2017 issued and published by the Respondent No,1 and award No,667/R dated 16.12.2017 along with all other notifications for acquiring the land of the Appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants inter alia contended that the impugned order is against the law and facts; that the land of the Appellants is being acquired in sheer violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"); that the impugned notifications and the award are result of political motivation; that the whole acquisition proceedings lack transparency and without adopting legal procedure; that if the above referred notifications and award are not declared null and void the Appellants as well as the subsequent purchaser/Respondent No,4 of the said land who has developed a colony on the land, would suffer an irreparable loss; that the suit of the Respondent No,4 for specific performance has already been decreed against the Appellants; that the impugned order has not been passed in proper application of mind and appraisal of material available on record; that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law.
3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellants and examined the record.
4. The perusal of impugned order reveals that the Appellants were heard at length by the competent authority at every stage during the course of objections invited on the acquisition proceedings. It further reflects that the section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the "Act") provides alternate remedy to the Appellants in case of any grievance about acquisition of their land viz: their objections be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested; whereas the record is silent regarding exhausting of any such remedy by the Appellants. For the sake of brevity the said section (18) is reproduced below and is as follows: "18. Reference to Court.---(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: Provided that every such application shall be made,--
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector 's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the collector under section 12, subsection (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector 's award, whichever period shall first expire.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 21, the Provincial Government may, if it has not accepted the award, refer the matter to the Court within a period of six months from the date of announcement of the award; provided that the Court shall not entertain the reference unless in its opinion there is a prima facie case for inquiry into and determination of the objection against the award."
5. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the constitutional petition is not maintainable where alternate remedy is provided under a Statute and has relied upon the case titled Habib Ullah v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (2005 SCM R 1320).
6. During the course of arguments, we were apprised by the learned counsel that a reference application under section 18 of the Act has since been filed. Since the Appellants have availed the appropriate remedy, this Intra Court Appeal is not maintainable.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, we see no illegality or legal perversity in the impugned order which has been passed in consonance with the spirit of law and does not call for any interference by us, therefore, this Appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed in limine.