2001 PLP 1222 (CLC)

Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Plaint, rejection of‑‑‑Acquisition of land‑‑‑Assailing the acquisition proceedings in civil suit‑‑‑Trial Court rejected the plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. being incompetent and appeal before Appellate Court was also dismissed‑‑ Contention of the plaintiffs was that their land was acquired on the basis of political motivation and with mala fide intentions‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Authorities had occupied the land owned by the plaintiffs after observing all formalities under the provisions of S.17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894‑‑‑In case the plaintiffs were aggrieved of the acquisition process, they were required to file reference/objection before the proper forum but instead they tiled a civil suit‑‑‑Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the suit and the appeal respectively, as the suit was not maintainable. Gauhar Zaman Kundi for Petitioners Brief facts leading to the present lis are that in order to shift the Fruit and Vegetable Market from City to some other place, the Municipal Committee, Bannu, issued a Notification for acquisition of land in Bazar Ahmad Khan. However, later on the earlier Notification regarding acquisition of land in Bazar Ahmad Khan was cancelled and fresh Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the acquisition of land in Birrikhel. To implement the shifting programme, the Deputy Commissioner, Bannu, was directed to complete the process of acquisition. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners who are residents of the selected place i.e. Birrikhel, tiled a suit in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bannu, challenging the Notification regarding subsequent acquisition of land in Birrikhel, to be based on mala fides and tainted with political consideration. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statements. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 27‑11‑1997 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. as the trial Court was not competent to adjudicate upon the controversy. Similarly, appeal tiled by the plaintiffs/petitioners was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 16‑11‑1999. Hence the instant revision petition.

2. Admittedly, the land owned by the petitioners was occupied by the defendants after observing all formalities of the acquisition under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the petitioners were aggrieved of the said acquisition process. they were required to tile reference/objection before the proper forum but instead they tiled civil suit. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit as the same was not maintainable. The appellate Court also rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioners filed against the order of the trial Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the cancellation of earlier acquisition order and forcible acquisition of the petitioners' land by issuing subsequent notification, is based on mala fides and is the result of political pressure and hegemony. But to support his contention, he miserably failed to bring on record any material verifying his contentions. In these circumstances, when all other owners of the lands have already received the compensations, the petitioners' grievance does not seem to be forceful and based on facts, as petitioner No.1 in his cross‑examination stated that he was willing to give the same land on high price, but the defendants refused. In other words he was willing to part with the land in lieu of higher compensation. Besides, the defendants acquired the land in the public interest after considering the land earlier acquired in Bazar Ahmad Khan as not suitable and feasible. This being the position, the revision petition stands dismissed in limine Q.M.H./M.A.K./260/P Petition dismissed.