ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                               C.P Nos.D-433, 434, 435, 436, 437 & 438 of 2009.                              

DATE         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

                                                FOR KATCHA PESHI.         

25.11.2009.

Mr. Manzoor Hussain Khoso, Advocate for Petitioners.

Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh, D.A.G, Pakistan.

Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, Addl. A.G Sindh along with Syed Mohammad Manan, Dy MEO, Qalandar Bux, Legal Asstt: MEO Office Hyderabad Circle & Mohammad Saleem, D.D.O (Revenue), Kotri.

                                                                        =                     

                        By this common order, we intend to dispose of these constitutional petitions. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent No.2 has acquired the lands of Petitioners. Acquisition proceedings were conducted and ultimately Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Officer. Under the Award payment was made to the Petitioners. The Counsel for Petitioners admits receipt of such payment. There are some land owners, who were granted compensation at the same rate but they challenged the quantum of compensation in terms of section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, before District Judge, Dadu now Jamshoro. Their matters went upto the Honourable Supreme Court and the quantum of compensation was revised/enhanced. The Petitioners now claim that they are also entitled to the compensation at the same rate and these petitions have been preferred on the such issue. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners have been discriminated under the Article 25 of the Constitution as they were entitled to receive same compensation which is being paid now to the other land owners.

                        We are not persuaded by this argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the party, who could object and seek enhancement by invoking the provisions of section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, if fails to avail such remedy, can not seek relief in a Constitutional Petition interalia, on the ground of discrimination. Article 25 of the Constitution could only attract a party placed in the same category, which is not the case in hand. If an alternate remedy is not availed by a party such party can not seek relief under the writ jurisdiction. We do not find any merits in these petitions and as such these Petitions are accordingly dismissed in limini.

                                                                                                                    JUDGE.

                                  JUDGE.            

A.C