' This petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1913) by one Amanullah Baig in order to seek following reliefs:--
(1) Declaration be kindly granted to the effect that the orders and actions of the respondents for taking possession prior to proceedings of acquisition as well as construction of 4-L/DB-2 Tarukari Drain are without jurisdiction, without legal effect and have been passed without lawful authority.
(2) Declaration be kindly granted to the effect that the proceedings of private negotiations are invalid, not operative and ineffective on the rights of the petitioner and all proceedings, actions and orders made in pursuance to be quashed.
(3) Declaration be kindly granted to the effect that the fixation of price/compensation on own accord is against the Standing Orders (Land Acquisition No,28).
(4) Direction be kindly issued to the respondents to vacate the possession of the petitioner land or fix price/compensation at the prevailing rate of Rs,20,000 and Rs,23,000 per Kanal plus 15 per cent.
Compulsory Acquisition Charges and 10 per cent. Of increase.
(5) Direction be kindly issued to the respondents to also make payment of compensation with effect from Crops of Kharif-1989.
(6) Any appropriate relief which the Court deems fit be kindly awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(7) Cost of the proceedings kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(8) Any injunction be granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents to get sanction of the mutation from the Revenue Authorities.
2. The facts, briefly stated, giving rise to this petition are that agricultural land measuring 13 Acres 3 Marlas situated in various revenue estates of Tehsil Ahmadpur East was acquired for the purpose of construction of a drainage/nullah. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 11-2-1990. It seems, however, that no proceedings whatsoever were taken thereafter under the Land Acquisition Act by the concerned authorities. In this background, the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, directed the parties to get the matter of payment of compensation of acquired land settled, by means of private negotiations. It will be necessary to mention, over here, that the possession of acquired land was taken by acquiring department without resoting to Notifications under sections 6 and 7 of the Act and without determining the price of the land.
Pursuant to the initiate of the Commissioner, the Member, Board of Revenue, constituted a committee comprising of Chaudhry Ishad Ahmad, Senior Engineer, WAPDA Scarp, Rahimyar Khan, Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob, Collector Land Acquisition, WAPDA Scarp, Rahimyar Khan, and Chaudhry Muhammad Yasin, Naib Tehsildar, Uch Sharif, to determine the market value of the land.
3. That committee, by order dated 9-6-1993, fixed the price of the acquired land falling within revenue estate Dhaiwla as Rs,47,000. The owners of the land received the compensation on the above rate on 26-8-1993. The case of the petitioner is that he did receive the compensation under protest. The owners of the land, including petitioner executed an agreement of sale dated 26-8- 1993 in favour of acquiring department. This agreement forms Annexure R-2 with the written statement submitted by the respondents. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Committee, while assessing the price of acquired land, had contravened the provisions of paras. 28 & 31 to 39 of the Standing Order No,28 (Land Acquisition); that the Committee neither had recorded the evidence of the petitioner, nor had attended to this question by hearing petitioner and had almost assessed the price of the acquired land unilaterally. On the strength of above circumstances, it was urged that the proceedings before the Committee from inception to finish were coram non judice. It was next contended that the sale-deed relied upon by the respondents did not help the case of the respondents.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and after having attending to their rival contentions, I am not inclined to exercise my Constitutional jurisdiction for the reason that the Committee did announce the price on 9-6-1993 and all the owners of the land, including the petitioner did receive the price so fixed by the Committee and had executed sale- deed in favour of acquiring department on 26-8-1993. The case of the petitioner is that he did receive the compensation under protest and so he was entitled to file this Constitutional petition.
The case of the other side is that he did receive price without any protest. This question, in the context of the above conflicting claims, raises dispute of facts and cannot be resolved without taking evidence. This is not ordinarily permissible in Constitutional jurisdiction.
For the foregoing discussions, this petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. This order shall however, not preclude the petitioner from moving the Court of plenary jurisdiction for seeking the redress of his grievances and that Court, if so moved, shall decide the matter in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation in the order of this Court.