ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009 read with enabling articles of constitution of Islamic republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioners have sought the following relief/prayer .
2. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting this writ petition the responden ts may kindly be directed to pay amount of compound interest on the compensation amount amounting to Rs.2523,1 02/-of award No. DK-1 (Napura Basin)/2017/717-18 at the rate of Rs. 8% per annum from the date of taking possession of acquired land i.e. 20th April 2008 till payment of compensation amount i.e. 28-2-2017.
3. The brief facts relevant for decision of the instant writ petition are that the present respondents had acquired land of the petitioners measuring 01 kanal 6 maralas and 3 Sarsahi along with structure and trees situated at Napura Basin Gilgit for construction of link road from Batali Bridge to Jahangir land at Napura Basin District Gilgit on 20-4- 2008 without payment of compensation amount to the petitioners of their acquired land and without passing of award by Collector Land Acquisition Gilgit. On 22-2-2017 the respondent No. 3/Collector Gilgit passed award bearing No. DR-1(Napura Basin)2017/717/18 for an amount amounting to Rs. 2523102/- in favor of the petitioners without including the compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum, whereas the respondent No. 3/ Collector was bound to pay compound interest from the date of taking possession of acquired land till payment of compensation amount under the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the respondents were bound under the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to pay compound interest to the petitioners but the respondents have failed to pay the same and have violated the mandatory provisions of the Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, the respondents may be directed to pay compound interest to the petitioners at the rate of 8% per annum from date of taking possession of acquired land till payment of compensation amount to the petitioners.
5. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that this writ petition is not maintainable as this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition regarding compound interest. The learned Assistant Advocate General further argued that the petitioners have not annexed any proof with the writ petition regarding taking possession of the land of the petitioners by the respondents, therefore, evidence in, this respect is required to be produced/ recorded before the learned Referee Court, therefore, petitioners may be directed to file reference petition under Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the court of Referee Judge Gilgit for redressal of their grievances.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly , writ is an extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court/ High Court and it can be exercised in a special circumstances, where aggrieved party had no adequate and efficacious remedy available in such circumstances, and this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can neither go into question invoking minute details and investigation.
In the instant case without proper inquiry and recording of evidence regarding actual date of taking of possession of acquired land of the petitioners cannot be determined by this court by invoking writ jurisdiction as the petitioners have not annexed any record/documentary evidence regarding actual taking of possession of their land by the respondents with this writ petition, therefore, the learned Referee Judge/District Judge will determine the aforesaid fact by recording evidence of both the parties, thus, this writ petition is not maintainable. We are fortified in our view by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit-Baltistan reported in 2011 GBLR 382 .
8. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition having no E substance is hereby dismissed. However , the petitioners may seek the proper remedy from an appropriate forum/court of law by filing reference petition under Section 34 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, i.e. in the court of learned District/Referee Judge Gilgit, if so advised. File.