1. ' Fazal son of Gullan has filed this Constitution petition seeking, inter alia, the following relieff-- "(i) To declare that the action of respondents not to make payment of compensation of land of petitioner alongwith interest up to date is null and void, ab initio, ultra vires and based on mala fides.
(ii) That the respondents be directed to make the payment of compensation amount of land of the petitioner Rs,3,86,080 alongwith profit up to date according to rules, to the petitioner soonest possible through L.B.O.D./Land Acquisition Officer, according to agreement of acquired land of the petitioner in accordance with Land Acquisition Act and as per award passed."
2. ' The brief facts which led to the filing of this Constitution petition as stated in paragraphs Nos.2 and.3 of the petition as follows:-- "(2) That the petitioner is the lawful owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing S. No,329/1 to 4 area 16-00 acres in Deh Mithi-2 Tapo Mithi Taluka and District Badin and hereinafter will be called the "Land".
(3) That the respondents in the year 1989-90 for the purpose of construction of disposal channels (Sim Nala) took the possession of an area of 3-07 acres from S. No,329/2, 3 of the land of the petitioner in Deh Mithi-2 Taluka and District Badin through Case No,03 of 1999 after completing the required formalities and award of compensation of the acquired land amounting to Rs,3,86,080 by the respondent(s) vide Award Order No,16 of 1999, but payment was not made for want of funds and the amount of Rs,3,86,080 of the petitioner plus interest at 6% from 1-5-1999 upto date, remains outstanding."
3. ' In response to the Court notice, District Officer (Revenue and Estate), Badin through Mr. Masood A.
4. Noorani learned Additional A.-G. Submitted the following statement alongwith a copy of Form-A:-- "The brief facts of the case are that B.No,329/1 to 4 area 16-00 acres was granted to Gulan son of Kaloo Lund in Deh Mithi-II, Taluka Badin on Harap conditions from Kharif 1978/79 vide A Form No,7608.
5. ' The abovesaid grantee was supposed to pay all 20 instalments up to 2004 and last 11 instalments recovered on 19-6-1996. The grant is fully paid and T.O. Form was issued on 25-6-1996 and has been countersigned by the defunct Revenue Officer Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad vide Letter No,MB/ Badin/3648, dated 4-7-1996.
6. As the land in question involved in acquisition was originally property of Government and was granted at the rate of Rs,250 per acre."
7. ' Mr. Noorani, also submitted a copy of the Land Grant Policy dated 20-11-1972 under which the land in dispute was granted to the petitioner. Condition No,24 of the Policy reads as follows:-- "24(1). If the land or any portion thereof is required for any public purpose, the grantee shall on demand by the Collector surrender the whole or so much of the land as may be required.
(2) If the land is surrendered under sub-rule (1), the grantee shall be entitled to the refund of the purchase price of the land, if any, paid by him and such additional sum as may be determined by the Collector in accordance with the general principles applicable to the acquisition of land for public purpose, including any sum for the standing crops and structure, if any, on the land and the said sums shall be recovered from the acquiring 'agency and paid to the grantee."
8. ' Respondents Nos.1 to 6 submitted their objections to the petition duly signed and sworn by an authorised officer (Muhammad Shabban Bajkani). Paragraphs Nos.2 and 3 of the objections read , as follows:-- "2. That regarding para.2 of petition, it is submitted that there appears a clear manipulation on the part of the petitioner as in the Record of Rights (Form VII) the Entry No,35 should have been entered before Entry No,38, but Entry No,35 was verified on 9-7-1996 by the concerned Mukhtiarkar in the name of Gullan son of Kalo, while Entry No,38 stands transferred in the name of Gullan on 8-7-1996.
9. It is further submitted that the land in question remained as Government land (Naqabooli Land) up to the year 1996, but the work of answering respondents was in operation from 1985 to 1990, therefore, there could be no question of acquiring the land of petitioner as alleged.
3. That as regards para.3 it is submitted that the award of the petitioner is nothing, but a managed and illegal act done by the Ex-L.A.O. Mr. Muhammad Idrees Bhutto in collusion with petitioner in excess of his powers, which resulted in his suspension on the complaint of answering respondents.
10. Further the said ExL.A.O. Was ordered to be relieved on 2-7-1999 and to hand over charge of land compensation files of LBOD, but he did not obtain clearance certificate from the department, therefore, the award of petitioner, if any, is an individual effort of Ex-LA.O. For which the department is not liable to pay any compensation and nothing is liable against department."
11. ' The allegations made by WAPDA were denied by the petitioner but it cannot be disputed that under Condition 24 of the Land Grant Policy the grantee is required to surrender the whole land or any part thereof, if required by the Government and the method and mode for determination of the amount paid to the person whose land is acquired is not exactly the same as the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the manner for determination of the same is different. If the amount is determined according to the guidelines laid down in Condition No,24 referred to above, the amount of compensation would obviously be less than the one which would be payable if the compensation were determined under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
12. ' WAPDA in its objections to the allegations made in paragraphs Nos.2 and 3 of the petition has asserted that the alleged award given by Muhammad Idrees Bhutto, Land Acquisition Officer, LBOD
(C) Project, WAPDA, Mirpurkhas (which does not bear any date) has been obtained by the petitioner in collusion with Muhammad Idrees Bhutto who was suspended and relieved from the Project by the Superintending Engineer's order dated 2-7-1999. The petitioner's claim having been denied and challenged by the respondents a dispute has arisen with regard to the validity of the award and the manner in which the compensation therein has been determined. The dispute regarding the validity and the mode of determination of compensation cannot be decided without recording evidence. It is well established that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a Constitution petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.