2021 PLP 1335 (CLC)

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.

Petitioners through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, are seeking the following relief. It is therefore, most humbly requested that by accepting this instant writ petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue the writ for the payment of compensation amount with 15% increase per year as per bank rate to the petitioners. OR Pass any such other, orders as this Honourable Court thinks fit and proper in view of the circumstances of the case.

2. Precise background of this writ petition is that the petitioners are landowners of the Mauza Shorkot and during operation Rah-e-Rast in South Waziristan, D.I. Khan Airport, situated in Mauza Shorkot, was handed over to Pak Army for aerial strikes and the then District Co-ordination Officer, D.I. Khan, chopped-down the sugarcane crops of petitioners with the promise to pay them compensation of the same. Thereafter, a vide letter dated 18.12.2009 directed the revenue staff to access the loss of crops and in compliance thereof the Patwari Halqa vide report dated 31.12.2009 assessed the compensation as Rs.36,67,800/-. The D.C.O. D.I Khan vide letter dated 20.01.2010 apprised the Commissioner D.I. Khan Division, D.I. Khan, about the loss as well as assessed compensation. However, till date petitioners have not been reimbursed and hence, they filed present writ petition.

3. Respondents Nos.2-3, 5-6, in compliance of the order of this Court, submitted their respective Para-wise comments wherein they opposed the issuance of desired writ.

4. Arguments heard and record gone through.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that petitioners have based their claim on the basis of Report dated 31.12.2009 of the Patwari whereby amount of compensation for damaged crops was evaluated Rs.36,67,800/- and the said report was communicated to the Commissioner, D.I. Khan, by the then DCO D.I. Khan vide letter No.627-28/DCO (S.Cane) dated 20.01.2010. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in their para-wise comments, while categorically admitting the stance of petitioners, have mentioned that during the year 2009, military authorities started operation Rah-e-Raast in South Waziristan Agency and during the said operation Army Aircraft and troops were deployed at D.I. Khan Airport. In order to secure the movement of Army and its installations, authorities of Pak Army asked them (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) to remove/cut the sugarcane crops from the lands adjacent to D.I. Khan Airport. Therefore, on the request of District Administration, petitioners voluntarily removed/cut the sugarcane crop; and as, Pak Army had promised for the payment of damaged crops, therefore, they (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) after assessing the loss and the amount of compensation, referred the matter to Brigade Major, Headquarters 5-Artillery Brigade, D.I. Khan, with the request to approach higher authorities of Pak Army for reimbursement of the loss of landowners. Learned Addl. Attorney General, argued that the Pak Army has no concern with the issue of compensation as it was between the DCO and the Commissioner D.I. Khan. He added that during the Security Conference, held on 19th February 2009 at Station Headquarters, D.I. Khan, the then DCO was approached to exercise discretionary powers to remove sugarcane crop and other wild growth upto one kilometre of D.I. Khan Airport, however, no promise for payment of compensation was made by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

6. From the above discussion as well as threadbare perusal of the comments of respondents Nos.2 and 3 and respondents Nos. 5 and 6, there remained no cavil with the proposition that the sugarcane crop of the petitioners was chopped down for security issues, nevertheless. Also there is no denial of the fact that upon the directions of DCO D.I. Khan the revenue staff assessed the loss caused to petitioners on account of damaging their crops, however, both sets of respondents are shifting the responsibility for payment of assessed compensation to each other. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 claimed that they had asked the landowners for the removal of crops on the assurance by respondents Nos.5 and 6 as to payment of compensation thereof, whereas, respondents Nos. 5 and 6 claimed that they had not promised for payment of any compensation, thus the issue prima facie involves factual controversy and this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction cannot fix the responsibility for payment of compensation on any of the two set of respondents, as the matter falls within the sole domain of Civil Court. Therefore, petitioners may approach the proper forum for the redress of their grievances.

7. This petition stands disposed-of in the above terms with no order as to cost. The pending Civil Misc. has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. MH/87/P Order accordingly.