Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 9

Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Planning Ordinance, (IV of 1978)

Section: 50, 52, 53, 60, 61

Tagline Where a special statute provides a complete mechanism for claiming land acquisition compensation and challenging an award, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred, and parties must first exhaust the statutory remedies.  Summary The petitioners, being the legal heirs of a co-owner of jointly owned land, filed a civil suit claiming half of the compensation and interest awarded for land acquired by the Provincial Urban Development Board (PUDB). They alleged that the respondent, their predecessor's brother, had wrongly received the entire compensation by projecting himself as the exclusive owner. Although the Trial Court decreed the suit, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment, holding that the suit was not maintainable. The High Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision and dismissed the revision petition. It held that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Planning Ordinance, 1978 provides a complete and exclusive statutory mechanism for raising objections, claiming compensation, filing appeals, and seeking review regarding land acquisition. Since the petitioners never availed these remedies and instead directly approached the Civil Court years later, their suit was barred by the principle of implied exclusion of civil jurisdiction under Section 9 CPC. A party cannot bypass a special statutory forum and invoke the general jurisdiction of the Civil Court. ORDER; MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J.- Through this revision petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Peshawar dated 15.03.2018, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents / defendants was allowed and thereby set-aside the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar dated 24.09.2003, who vide the same had decreed the suit of the petitioners / plaintiffs. Precisely, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioners / plaintiffs, being legal heirs of Marghub Ahmad, brought a suit that their said predecessor and respondent / defendant No.1 namely, Mahboob Ahmad Khan (now represented by his legal heirs) were real brothers and they were running joint business in the name…