MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J. Through this single judgment in instant petition, we would like to decide instant (1) W.P No.455-M/2022 titled "Mudassar Khan Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others", (2) W.P No.456-M/2022 titled "Muhammad Zahir Shah and others Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others", (3) W.P No.457-M/2022 titled "Fathullah Khan and others Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others", (4) W.P No.840-M/2022 titled "Sartaj Ali and others Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others", (5) W.P No.887- M/2022 titled "Shamshir Ali Khan and others Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others" and (6) W.P No.905-M/2022 titled "Muhammad Sabir Khan and others Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others", as an identical question of law and facts is involved in all these petitions, besides the petitioners are aggrieved from acquisition of their respective properties for the of purpose "Constitution of Swat Motorway (Phase-II) from Chakdara to Fatehpur 79.69 kms", which is a step ahead for extension of Swat Motorway planed as a 4-lane (2x2) extendable to six (06) lanes (3x3) to cater for future t transportation needs.
2. Petitioners, being large in number, have filed these petitions in representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C). Petitioners of instant petition are the resident of Kuza Bandai, petitioners namely Muhammad Zahir Shah etc. of W.P No.456-M/2022 a are residents of Bara Bandai, petitioners namely Fathullah an etc. of W.P No.457-M/2022 are residents of Ningolai, p petitioners namely Sartaj Ali etc. of W.P No.840-M/2022 are residents of Sher Palam, petitioners namely Shamshir Ali khan etc. of W.P No.887-M/2022 are residents of Dherai Baba Damghar while petitioners namely Muhammad Sabir an etc. of W.P No.905-M/2022 are residents of Tehsil Adenzai, District Dir Lower and Aladand Dheri, District Malakand. All the petitioners are aggrieved from acquisition of their respective properties, for which notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act of 1894) for public purpose "The Construction of Swat Motorway (Phase-II)length 70 kms (approx..) in District Swat" was issued on 07.01.2022 in instant petition, in W.P No.456-M/2022 on 03.03.2022, in W.P No.457-M/2022 on 17.02.2022, in W.P No.840- M/2022 on 25.05.2022, in W.P No.887-M/2022 on 07.1.2022 [except W.P No.905-M/2022, where the grievance of the petitioners was that neither their properties were acquired nor any process was initiated in that respect but the respondents are interfering with the possession of their property, measuring it, creating hindrances in their smooth farming, gardening and normal lives pertaining to the properties owned by them.] It was contended by the petitioners that they are the owners of their respective shares in their agriculture properties wherefrom they through farming are earning their livelihood to meet necessities of day-to-day expenses, education of children, health etc. which are sufficient to meet the basic necessities of their upcoming generations but the respondents, without adhering to the legal phenomenon, directions of the Government, the intention of legislature and considering the necessities of the petitioners, violating the provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Acquisition Rules, 2020 (the Rules of 2020) on their own will, desire and whim for providing benefits to a 3rd party because the project is based on Build-Operate-Transfer
(BOT) Basis under Public Private Partnership Regime, thus, their act is violative to their fundamental rights, illegal, uncalled for, unwarranted, whimsical, unconstitutional, as such, same is inoperative and ineffective upon their rights. It was alleged that they being the residents of the hilly area, connected with the profession of farming, with limited resources and limited agricultural land, are intended to be deprived of by the respondents; that the respondent/acquiring agency can acquire other properties for the need for the subject purpose, for which, notification u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 has been issued; that the respondents are adamant to create hurdles and ruin their lives leading to fundamental and statutory rights. For their reliefs, all the petitioners have referred to the Rules framed u/s 55 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Provincial Government providing a mechanism and methodology by considering the agonies evolved since 1913. It was further alleged that hundreds/thousands of the people are being affected from this project, which itself has got a technical issue but the respondents for the satisfaction of their inner feelings have Initiated the process of acquisition, being violative to Article 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution). The petitioners in support of their contentions, placed reliance on the cases of "Masood Ahmad Wassan and 03 others Vs. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh and 13 others" (2020 YLR 2597, Sindh), Allah Ditta and others vs. Chief Engineer and others" PLD 2007 Lahore 434), "Shalimar Fabrics Vs. District officer Revenue" (2005 MLD 789, Lahore), "Rana Muhammad Sharif Vs. Commissioner Gujranwala Division and others" (2001 CLC 1497), and "Divisional Engineer (Dev.) N-H T& T Gujranwala and 03 other Vs. Rana Muhammad Sharif' (2002 CLC 985).
3. Respondents were put on notice, in response to which, t the Project Director appeared in person.
Comments were submitted by respondents No.5, 6 & 8 in instant petition as well as in connected W.P No.457-M/2022, wherein they have refuted the allegations of petitions and resisted the issuance of desired writ on different legal and factual objections, by contending therein that neither in the entire process the p provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 nor the Rues of 2020, were violated nor the rights of petitioners (fundamental or statutory) have been infringed, likewise, nothing is i n consistent with Constitution or the rights provided under the law of land were abridged. It was also submitted that best financial, commercial, feasibility study, hydrological and e Environmental impact assessm ent were considered, deliberated and finalized, keeping in view the larger interest of the public, especially the inhabitants of this area, which has got a historic background of tourism and that in order to meet the upcoming future challenges, this project was a approved/initiated, thus, same cannot be curtailed or restricted on the analogy of either any technical issue or individual rights because when the property is being acquired by the respondents for the project, for which process has already been initiated (under challenged), the owners of the land shall be paid the best price alongwith compulsory acquisition charges and interest on the principle of willing buyer and willing seller. Same is criteria for the purpose of acquisition of the property owned by an individual by c considering the aim, purpose and object of acquisition, which is a public purpose. They have also contended that the provisions of the Act of 1894 are self-explanatory, especially with reference to the proviso to section 4 of the Act of 1894 providing six-month time for completion of the entire process, thus, non-issuance of a notification within the period of 15 days as provided under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2020, was due to the objections, filing of petition etc. In support of their contentions, they placed reliance on the cases of "Messrs Mehraj Flour Mills and others Vs. Provincial Government and others" (2001 SCMR 1806), "Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Information and others" ( 2021 CLC 159, Islamabad), " judgment of this Court dated 18.05.2022 in W.P No.1015-M12021 titled "Dr. Amjad Ali vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others", "Khalid-ur-Rehman through legal heirs and others Vs. Government of N.W.F.P through Secretary Education Department and others" (PLD 2007 Peshawar 141), "Sadiq Qamash Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 05 others" (2014 YLR 2400, Peshawar), "Muhammad Israil and 30 others Vs. Patreend Hydro Electric Project Patreend, Muzafarabad through Managing Director Incharge and 13 others" (2018 CLC 411), " Ch. Nazir Ahmad and 02 others Vs. Province of Punjab through District Officer (Revenue) Lahore and 05 others" (2007 CLC 107), "Government of Sindh through Secretary Agriculture and Livestock Department and others Vs. Messrs Khan Ginners (Private) Limited and 57 others" (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 347), "judgment of this Court dated 17.07.2017 in W.P No.323-M/2016, "Mujaddad Ashraf and 05 others Vs. Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore and 03 others" (2014 .CLC 230, Lahore), "Zafeer Gul and 19 others Vs. N.W.F. Province through Secretary Government of N.W.F.P Revenue Department and others" (2001 CLC 1853, Peshawar), "Subah Sadiq and others Vs. Secretary and others" (2011 YLR 2500, Lahore), "Noman Ahmad and 14 others Vs. Capital Development Authority through chairman and another" (PLD 2021 Islamabad 75), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others vs. Muhammad Khurshid" (2021 SCMR 369), ""Zafeer Gul and 19 others Vs. N.W.F. Province through Secretary Government of N.
W.F.P Revenue Department and others" (2001 CLC 1853, Peshawar), "Sub. (Retd). Muhammad Ashraf Vs. District Collector, Jhelum and others" (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 706), and "Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam through Vice Chancellor and anothers Vs. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 07 others" (2022 MLD 63, Sindh).
The petitioners of W.P No.905-M/2022 alleged that without initiating the process for acquisition of their properties, neither properties could be demarcated, measured, restricted, limited, curtailed, fenced to the extent of their owned residential area from enjoying and utilizing their properties, with which, the respondents have got no concern whatsoever, thus, the activities of the respondents are adversely affecting their rights causing prejudice to their interest and same is violative to their fundamental rights. In response to which respondents submitted that the process for acquisition has already been initiated and notification u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 has also been issued, thus, the petitioners, if grieved, may seek their appropriate remedy u/s 18 for enhancement of compensation or u/s 30 of the Act of 1894 for apportionment.
5. We have given due consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Project Director, Assistant Attorney General, Additional Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General and with their valuable assistance perused the record.
6. In essence, the grievance of the petitioners is obvious from the prayers in their respective petitions originating from their cause of action, which has got nexus with the land, for which notifications u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 have already been issued. Though the petitioners contended that the purpose for which the acquisition is in progress is not a public purpose however, in the case of "Fauji Foundation and another vs. Shamimur Rehman" (PLD 1983 SC 457), it was held by their Lordship that: - "297. Similarly, here too, the expression "public purpose" has no precise rigid meaning except that it should have the criterion of benefit or advantage to the public as distinguished from the private interest of an individual. In this connection I would refer to C.D. Basu's "Commentaries on the Constitution of India", Vol. II, page 217: "The definition of the expression is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and state of society and its needs. The point to be determined in each case is whether the acquisition is in the general interest of the community as distinguished from the private interest of an individual."
In the case of "Federation of Pakistan through G.M. Telegraph & Telephone Department, Lahore Telephone Region, Lahore" (1993 SCMR 1673), where the question was Whether acquisition of a land for a housing scheme is a public purpose, it was held as under: - "There is no doubt that the acquisition of the land for a Housing Scheme formulated by the Board of Revenue Employees Housing Society Limited is a public purpose. By public purpose is meant an object or aim in which the general interest of the community as compared with the interest of an individual is involved, but it can hardly be denied that the object for which the land has been purchased by the Telegraph and Telephone Department from the Settlement Authorities is also a public purpose."
Pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 "every citizen shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest." Likewise, in consonance with Article 24 of the Constitution, "no person shall be compulsorily deprived of his property save in accordance with law." A clog has been made vide sub-Article (2) of Article 24 of the Constitution to the effect that, "no Property shall be compulsorily acquired or taken into Possession except for public purpose, and subject to the Payment of compensation." Undoubtedly, any law providing acquisition of any class of property for the purpose of 1 education, medical aid, housing, public facilities and services, such as roads, is exempted and the acquisition of property and validity thereof shall not be affected in term of Article 24 of the Constitution if the acquisition of property is for public purpose.
7. The construction of road is need of the hour, requirement for better management on administrative side as well as for the development of the area qua the future needs of the society but in doing so, respondents cannot be allowed to act as per their desire, or wish or to deprive the individuals from their rights enshrined in the Constitution or the rights created and protected by the Statutes. It was submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that for construction of road any other piece of land could be acquired but the choice of their property for the construction of road amounts to deprive them from their agriculture property. In the case of "Muhammad Ashiq and another v. Water and Manpower Development Authority, Lahore through Chairman WAPDA House and another" (PLD 2008 SC 335) where it was observed by the apex Court that: "We have found from the above noted para that the land was being acquired by the Government at the public expenses. Secondly, the land was being required for public purpose, namely, for the' construction of WAPDA offices and official residential colony. This aim and purpose were again reiterated and declaration to that effect was also got published by the Provincial Government under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. According to subsection (3) of section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the said declaration has got the presumption of conclusive evidence of the fact that the land was acquired for the public purpose. After the publication of this declaration, the presumption was to be rebutted by the present petitioners through sound material and cogent evidence. Mere plea that the land of Seth Abid and his relative was not acquired although it was situated within the area surrounded by the area to be acquired, could not lead to this conclusion that the land was not being acquired for the public purpose or the acquisition was based on mala fides. The explicit words of acquisition of land in dispute, by the Government at the public expense in the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are sufficient to hold that the land was being acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of WAPDA offices and residential colony. The Government was to decide as to which land was suitable for its purpose.
Therefore, no mala fides could be attributed to the Government merely on this plea. The plethora of judgments have found place in the judgments of the learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which need not be repeated in this judgment."
More-so, the Concept of public purpose was quite exhaustive and could not be confined to a limited definition. Broadly speaking, the expression 'public purpose would include a purpose in which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of the individuals, is directly and vitally concerned. Thus, keeping in view the acquisition of the property for construction of Swat Motorway (phase-II), Article 23 & 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the principles enunciated by the apex Court, the design & drawing of the project, we are of the view that the acquisition of the property is for public purpose. In Suo Motu case No,13 of 2007 (PLD 2009 SC 217) while defining the term "public purpose" in section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "where a collective interest of the community is involved, the individual interest must give way to the interest of the community." It was also observed that "In short the individual interest must give way to interest of the community or a part thereof and a part of the community must give way to the interest of the entire community or public-at-large." Where there are public and private interests, the one which is for the betterment of society and public at large shall be preferred. Reliance is placed on the case titled "Sub. (Recd.)
Muhammad Ashraf v. District Collector Jehlum and Others" (PLD 2002 SC 706). The first objection of the petitioners was regarding violation of Rules No. 5, 6 & 7 of the Rules of 2020, which for convenience, are reproduced as under: "5. Procedure for issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. (1) Where after the examination of feasibility under rule 4, the Collector, is of the view that the land may be acquired for the Acquiring Department, he shall issue a notification under section 4 of the Act stating clearly the name of the revenue estate or locality, tehsil, details of the dimensions and boundaries of square of rectangles, field numbers and the appointment area to be acquired.
(2) After the issue of a notification under section 4 of the Act, the Collector shall take immediate necessary steps to have the area surveyed and submit his report to the Commissioner not later than fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act.
6. Procedure for issuance of notification under section 5 of the Act. (1) Where the land is to be acquired for a public purpose, the Commissioner shall issue a notification under section 5 of the Act, not later than fifteen (15) days from the date of the publication under section 4 of the Act. If no notification is issued under section 5 of the Act within the period as given above, the Commissioner shall, immediately report the matter to the Revenue and Estate Department for extension of time.
(2) On the request of the Commissioner, the Revenue and Estate Department may, in its discretion, extend the time for the issue of a notification under section 5 of the Act, which shall not be more than fifteen (15) days in total.
(3) If the Revenue and Estate Department declines to grant the extension requested for or if the Commissioner fails to issue a notification under section 5 of the Act within the extended period, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have come to an end: Provided that any time spent in the prosecution of a judicial remedy shall be excluded from the said period.
7. Declaration under section 6 of the Act. After notification under section 5 of the Act, the Commissioner shall, within thirty (30) days, issue declaration under section 6 of the act, and no declaration is issued within the said period, the acquisition proceedings shat be deemed to have come to an end: Provided that the Revenue and Estate Department may, in its discretion, extend the time for the issuance of declaration under section 6 of the Act which shall not be more than thirty days: Provided further that any time spent in the prosecution of a judicial remedy shall be excluded from the said period."
Rule 6 (3) manifests that if the Revenue and Estate Department declines to grant the extension requested for or if the Commissioner fails to issue a notification under section 5 of the Act within the extended period, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have come to an end.
Whereas section 11-B of the Act provides that whole process of acquisition of land should be completed within a period of six months from the date of notification under section 4, or where it is not completed within the stipulated period, the reason for delay shall be explained by the Collector in his award, which, if not satisfactory, may hold him personally responsible for the delay and may result in disciplinary proceedings against him thus, the Act does not contain any penal provision for revocation of Notification issued under section 4 as it was amended earlier through Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 2017, whereby in the proviso for sub-section 4 it was inserted that "the entire process of acquisition shall be completed within one year otherwise the notification issued under section 4 shall be deemed to have been revoked". MIS. Sher Muhammad Khan, Syed Umar Ali Shah, Sabir Shah and Zegar Sher, Advocates who are representing the petitioners in all these petitions submitted at the bar that they are not against the acquisition of land, construction of road, the policy of Government or the intention of legislature but when the Rules have provided a mechanism for doing a thing in a particular manner, it must be followed by the State functionaries, who are under an obligation to protect the rights of individuals and to act in accordance with law. The process of acquisition is being originated and stamped from section 4 of the Act of 1894. In the instant petition, notification u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued for the purpose of "The Construction of Swat Expressway (Phase II) length 70.0 kms (approx.) in District Swat" on 07.01.2022, with specification of Khasra numbers as reflected therein. After issuance of this notification, the present petitioners moved through their objections to Deputy Commissioner, Swat, which were received on 03.03.2022. Though a specific time bound mechanism has been provided by the Rules of 2020 for further process of acquisition under sections 5 & 6 leading to the issuance of award u/s 11 of the Act of 1894, however, second proviso to rule 7 of the Rules of 2020 provides that any time spent in prosecution of a j I judicial remedy shall be excluded from said period. It is obvious that instant petition was filed on 09.04.2022 wherein on 15.06.2022, a status quo order was issued by this Court besides in the other connected petitions as well. Moreover, for other properties notices under section 4 were issued on different dates i.e., notification u/s 4 regarding total property 846-kanal and 11-marla has been issued on 03.03.2022, whereas regarding other Khasra numbers a similar notification has been issued on 07.01.2022. Respondents through C.M No.1960-M/2022 have also placed on file another notification issued u/s 4 of the Act on 25.05.2022. T Therefore, the non-completion of entire process foe issuance of notification in the instant petition was because of filing of these as well as other petition which period as per rules is required to be excluded. The acquisition is being made from re revenue estates of Kanju, Dam Ghar, Kuza Bandai, Dheri, Imam Dherai, Ali Grama, Hazara, Ningolai and Bara Bandai etc The verification certificates in consonance with the Rules of 2020 have been placed on record by the respondents, where all the properties were properly verified regarding which notifications u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 have been issued by them. No doubt, that certain agricultural properties were also included in the notification u/s 4 of the Act, regarding which extracts from jamabandi from the revenue estate of Kuza Bandai have been annexed, however, the alignment of the project reflects the requirements from Chakdara to terminals at Fatehpur. It also indicates the locations of the proposed interchanges. It was also submitted by the respondents that for the purpose of construction of Swat Expressway (Phase-II), a feasibility report was sought and the land, which was picked for the purpose of issuance of notifications u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 for subject project, in view of its design parameters and relevant policies qua Khyber Pakhtunkhwa River Protection Ordinance, 2002 and National Water Policy, 2018, is the best property.
8. We have gone through from Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Acquisition Rules, 2020, the latter seems to be a ditto copy of the former it connection with proviso to section 4 of the Act 1984. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Messrs Mehraj Flour Mills and others Vs. Provincial Government and others" (2001 SCMR 1806) granted leave to appeal and later on enunciated and ruled that: there is no cavil with the proposition that the rule shall always be consistent with the Act and no rule shall militate or render the provisions of the Act ineffective.
The test of consistency is whether the provisions of the Act and that of rules can stand together.
Main object of rules is to implement the provisions of the Act and in case of conflict between them the rule must give way to the provisions of the Act. In any case, the rules shall not be r repugnant to the enactment under which they are made.Thus, non-compliance of Rules 5, 6 & 7 of the Rules of 2020 could not render the acquisition and the process thereof as illegal.
9. Insofar as the acquisition of agricultural property is concerned, the law provides that if no alternate/other land is a available for a public purpose then agricultural property can be acquired by the authority, save in accordance with law Keeping in view the environmental vulnerabilities, the construction of Swat Expresswa y (Phase-II) was not only the need of the day but this would also protect the environment and reduce any negative impacts as per the prevailing laws and regulations. More-so, in the matter in hand, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines have also been taken into consideration in depth and in view thereof, the alignment of the project was designed, which would be most appropriate keeping in view the flood hazards, environmental impacts and other relevant parameters.
Undoubtedly, the Constitution provides a protection to the property of individuals, however, when any property is needed for public purpose including the agricultural one, can be acquired for the public purpose in view of section 6 of Act of 1894. Insofar as the compensation of the petitioners and other land owners is concerned, respondents shall publish the notification i.e., award u/s 11 of the Act of 1894 by determining the market and potential value of the property qua the compensation amount for constructed houses or other d. mages caused to private properties of individuals and if any person feels himself aggrieved from determination of the compensation amount or otherwise, may resort to the Referee Court, where all the matters including potentiality and market value of the property in juxtaposition with apportionment u/s 30 of the Act of 1894 shall be dealt with by providing equal opportunities of hearing to all concerned in order to substantiate their respective contentions through their best evidence. In these petitions, the points alleged by the Petitioners pertaining to their submissions are the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be resolved through these constitutional petitions but this does not mean that the petitioners will be deprived of from a fair trial because it is right of every individual in accordance with fundamental rights safeguarded by the Constitution. The disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved through these petitions by this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction u/s 199 of the Constitution for want of evidence. Reliance in this respect is placed on the cases of "Fida Hussain Vs Mst Saiqa (2011 SCMR 1990), & Government of Punjab Vs Ghulam Nabi (PLD 2001 SC 415).
11. Insofar as the directions of this Court dated 14.09.2022 in W.P No.84-P/2022 wherein certain reservations were made are concerned, same being distinguishable, keeping in view the factual aspect, because the land was being acquired in that petition by SIDB for establishment of industrial zone from property which was agricultural in nature and simultaneously falling across the road opposite to University of Swabi. This being a great project, having got an impact being supported by the feasibility report, compliance of relevant provisions of law, determination of rights, protection of fundamental rights of individuals, issuance of different notifications, strategic aspect of the country, has been initiated which is, no doubt, a public purpose, as such, the notifications issued u/s 4 of the Act for the process of acquisition of the property and construction of the road/ Expresswa y cannot be declared summarily unconstitutional and illegal. Admittedly, this Court has got ample powers of judicial review in a matter pertaining to the policies and notifications etc. issued by public functionaries but with certain exceptions if such notification offends the rights of individual or issued against law or inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. However, learned counsel for petitioners have not been able to point out any inconsistency in the impugned notifications issued by the respondents for the purpose of acquisition of land for construction of Swat Expresswa y (Phase-II).
12. It is pertinent to mention here that issuance of a notification u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 may be in respect of more properties, however, during process of acquisition for leading it to completion by issuance of award, the acquiring agency and acquisition department may de-notify certain properties not falling within the purview of public purpose or not suitable for construction of Swat Expresswa y (Phase-II) as it is very initial stage when the acquiring department through acquiring agency has initiated the process of acquisition. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, being distinguishable in view of the peculiar circumstances of the project, for which the property is being acquired, as such same cannot be made applicable in the matter in hand.
13. Thus, in view of the above, all these petitions, being misconceived, stands dismissed except W.P No.905-M/2022 titled "Muhammad Sabir Khan and others Vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others". In W.P No.905-M/2022, the prayer of the petitioners is that without acquisitioning of their properties, the respondents be restrained from interfering, which is illegal and against the law, as such, on the directions of this Court respondents have submitted their parawise comments refuting therein the contention of the petitioners, with an addition that the project of Swat Expressway (Phase-II) is in progress and notification u/s 4 of the Act of 1894 in respect of the properties situated at Pul Chowki area, Allahdand, Thana, Haibatgram, Gatkoto Jalal upto Landakay has been issued on 24.09.2022, for which a demand notice for a cost of land acquisition for the Swat Expressway (Phase-II) of an amount of Rs.1,200,000,000/- has also been issued. Thus, in view of the comments of respondents, connected WP No. 905-M/2022 stands disposed of in terms of directing the respondents to properly acquire the property of petitioners and till then their properties shall not be interfered with and if any property of petitioners has been acquired, they shall be compensated in accordance with law, however, the determination of market and potential value, if disputed, shall be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction.