Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the respondents/ WAPDA installed pole over the land of the petitioner without acquiring the land of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,1 has no authority whatsoever under the law to install the pole over the land of the petitioner measuring 2 Acres without acquiring the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. He further submits that the petitioner is penalised by the action of the respondents. The respondents did not determine the compensation to the petitioner till date. The petitioner has no objection to dispose of writ petition, in case respondents are directed to determine the compensation after associating the petitioner qua the land of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court as the petitioner has repeatedly mentioned incorrect area of land inquestion measuring 16 Kanals; whereas actual area is 11 Marlas. He further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable by virtue of section 14(2) of the WAPDA. Act read with section 10 of the Telegraphs Act. He further submits that the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition No,3879 of 1993 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 18-9-1983 and the petitioner was directed to avail proper remedy under section 14(2) of the WAPDA Act read with section 10 of the Telegraphs Act.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition 10234 of 1999 which was also disposed of with the observation to approach the Deputy Commissioner for the redressal of their grievances. He further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Superior Courts.
In support of his contention, he relied upon "PLD 1991 SC 715" (Malik Haji Nazar Muhammad v.
WAPDA).
4. Learned counsel for petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner has no right under the aforesaid provisions to approach the Deputy Commissioner unless the respondents/WAPDA shall not determine the compensation qua the land in-question of the petitioner, utilized by the respondents for installing high power transmission line on his land. He further submits that the petitioner has not concealed any material fact from this Court as is evident from the contents of paras. Nos,6 and 7 of grounds of writ petition. He further submits that the Deputy Commissioner is not competent Authority to determine the compensation qua the land inquestion. The respondents are competent authority to determine the compensation of the land in question of the petitioner, utilized by the respondents for the said purpose. He further submits that surrounding land of the petitioner is not in a condition to be utilized by petitioner on account of installation of high power transmission 'line over his land, therefore, the respondents are duty bound to give compensation to the petitioner for the whole land of the petitioner.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
6. It is admitted fact that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No,3879 of 1993 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 18-9-1983 in the following terms:- "The statutes referred to above provide for the forum and the -petitioner, if advised, should approach the said forum for the assessment of the compensation. The undertaking of the WAPDA Authority through its counsel made before this Court is that the compensation as assessed will immediately be paid to the petitioner. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of."
Thereafter, the petitioner filed second Writ Petition No,10254 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10-6-1999 in the following terms:-- "I have heard the learned counsel at length. The stand taken by the WAPDA is strange that they have utilized the land, installed a pole on the land and the respondents yet are neither prepared to compensate owner of the land nor the land was put to their use without acquiring or purchasing the same from the owner. As far as the last contention of the petitioner that the compensation was determined without associating them is concerned, it is directed that they effect beforethe Deputy Commissioner, Lahore for the redress of their grievance. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of."
7. It is settled principle of law that provisions of, C.P.C. are applicable in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "PLD 1970 SC 1" (Hussain Bakhsh v.
Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others). Third writ petition qua the same subject-matter and relief is not maintainable on the well-known principle of constructive of res judicata as power principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "PLD 1987 SC 143" Pir Bakhsh represented by the Legal Heirs and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others). In view of the aforesaid discussion, third writ petition qua the same subject-matter and relief is not maintainable by virtue of section 11 of the C.P.C.
In view of what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed.