' NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J.---Pakistan State Oil Ltd. Petitioner and other oil companies were having Bulk Oil Depots near Railway Station, Peshawar City since long. On 7-6-1986 fire broke out in one of the oil depots which caused heavy loss to property and Government of N.-W.F.P. Decided to shift all the Bulk Oil Depots out of the limits of Municipal Corporation, Peshawar in order to avoid recurrence of such incident and to ensure safety of life and property. Pursuant to this decision the Provincial Government initiated acquisition proceedings of land situate in Taru Jabba, Tehsil Nowshera, District Peshawar for the petitioner as well as other oil companies. The petitioner was allotted land measuring 58 Kanals 13 Marlas situate in village Babi, Tehsil Nowshera. It transpires that there is Railway line from Peshawar to Karachi in between the aforesaid land and the G.T. Road and there care be no direct access to the suit land from the G.T. Road. The acquisition proceedings of the land in dispute were carried out by the Assistant Commissioner Nowshera, respondent No,1 exercising powers of the Collector Land Acquisition who by letter No,1043 dated 13-12-1986 initially assessed compensation of the suit land at Rs, 18,56,711 inclusive of 15% compulsory acquisition charges but subsequently without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or giving any notice to him, made award No,183/78 on 10-9-1987 whereby the compensation of the entire suit land was fixed at Rs,73,31,256 inclusive of 15% compulsory acquisition charges. In determining this amount of compensation the learned respondent No,1 relied upon one solitary transaction effected through open auction between the petitioner and M.E.O. Peshawar through sale-deed registered on 24-12-1986. The aforesaid land purchased by the petitioner through open auction from M.E.O. Is situate on the G.T. Road while the acquired land is situate across Railway line and is inaccessible. In order to have an approach to the acquired land the petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs,23,88,400 to Pakistan Railways for construction of an overhead bridge from G.T. Road side. There was also one more disability with regard to the acquired land namely a High Tension Line of WAPDA was passing over the said land under which the petitioner could not construct any storage tanks.
Consequently the petitioner had to pay a further amount of Rs,1,21,962 to WAPDA Authorities for removal of the aforesaid High Tension Line. The petitioner objected to the assessment of compensation at the aforesaid highly excessive rates and requested the learned respondent No,1 to make a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar. The former made a reference to the latter but the same was rejected by the learned Senior Civil Judge by order dated. 8-6-1989 holding that the objection petition was not maintainable. The petitioner left with no other adequate remedy came up with the writ petition in hand challenging the aforesaid order of the learned Senior Civil Judge as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Major General (Rtd.) Nasirullah Khan Baber, respondent No,2 of the aforesaid writ petition had also filed Writ Petition No,71/1988 against Assistant Commissioner Nowshera, respondent No,1, in his capacity as Land Acquisition Collector and others claiming that a direction be given by respondent No,1 to collect the remaining amount of compensation from Managing Director and Divisional Manager of Pakistan State Oil, respondents Nos.2 and 3 so that the same be received by the owners of the land acquired for respondents Nos.2 and 3.
3. Since the point involved in both the writ petitions is the same, judgment in the Writ Petition No,292 of 1982 in hand shall also dispose of the aforesaid Writ Petition No,71/1988.
4. It is clear that the land has been acquired for the benefit of a company and the provisions of section 50 of the Act Will come into play. According to the provisions of subsection (2) of section 50 of the Act in any proceedings held before the Collector or the Court in connection with the acquisition of land for the benefit of the company, the Company concerned can appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation but no such company is entitled to demand a reference under section 18. It is thus clear that the only right available to a company for the benefit of which land is being acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, is that the said company can adduce evidence for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation only but it has got no right to demand from the Collector a reference to be made to the Land Acquisition Judge under section 18 of the Act. As such the reference made by the Pakistan State Oil, petitioner in the writ petition in hand under section 18 of the Act was without any lawful authority. Actually the petitioner was not possessed of any such remedy under the Act.
The mere fact that the petitioner had to make arrangement for an overhead bridge to reach the land would not entitle them to claim from the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference to the Land Acquisition Judge under section 18 of the Act. A remedy which is specifically prohibited by a law cannot be allowed to be availed of by way of a writ petition and in this connection we rely upon the cases of Esufali v. Sales Tax Commissioner (AIR 1969 Madhya Pradesh 134) and M.V.M.M. Trust v. C. Varada Raju (AIR 1972 Andhra Pradesh 362). We are, therefore, of the confirmed opinion that the petitioner was not possessed of any legal right to demand from the learned Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference to the learned Land Acquisition Judge under section 18 of the Act and the same right cannot be enforced by him through the writ petition in hand.
5. In so far as the Writ Petition No,71 of 1988 is concerned, since the amount of compensation has to be disbursed to the land-owners by the Land Acquisition Collector because no reference under section 18 of the Act is pending before the Senior Civil Judge Peshawar/Land Acquisition Judge we will direct the latter to transfer the amount of compensation to the learned Assistant Commissioner Nowshera/Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No,1 for disbursement to the owners.
7. As a result of the above discussion we will dismiss Writ Petition No,292 of 1989 limine and direct the learned Assistant Commissioner Nowshera, respondent No,1 in Writ Petition No,71 of 1988 to get back the amount of compensation from the Court of Senior Civil Judge Peshawar/Land Acquisition Judge and disburse the same expeditiously to the owners under the provisions of the Act. Writ Petition No,71 of 1988 is disposed of accordingly. We however leave the parties of both the writ petitions to bear their pwn costs.