Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court in W rit Petition No.143 of 2018.
2. The facts forming the background of the captioned petition for leave to appeal are that the petitioner , herein, filed a writ petition before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, alleging therein, that he is 1 class State Subject and hails from District Kotli. It was averred that he is owner of the land comprising khewat No.1 (old), 30/30 (new), situated in village Bhang, Tehsil and District Kotli, which came in his share from his forefather . It was contended that respondent No.3, herein, forwarded requisition to respondent No.4, herein, for award of the land comprising survey No.291, measuring 381 kanal , 15 marla , situated at village Bhang, whereupon, respondent No.4 issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 28.01.2008 and consequently right of hearing was afforded to the other inhabitants of the village Bhang. It was further contended that after due process of law, respondent No.4, herein, submitted his report to respondent No.2, herein, for determination of market value of the acquired land who assessed the same at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per kanal vide notification dated 03.03.2016, however , due to non-availability of funds, the compensation was not given to the landowners timely . It was further contended that thereafter respondent No.4, herein, after lapse of a reasonable time against initiated proceedings for issuance of notification under sectio n 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.06.2017. It was alleged that respondent No.2, herein, without providing right of hearing to the petitioner , herein, and other inhabitants of the locality , issued notifications under sections 6 and 7 by violating sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act and illegally issues award No.03/2017 on 16.08.2017. The respondents filed comments, wherein, it was stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition as he is not an owner in village Bhang. It was further stated that the petitioner has an alternate remedy in shape of reference, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed on this sole ground. The learned High Court after hearing the parties through the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2019 has dismissed the writ petition in limine.st
3. Mian Sultan Mehmood, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the acquisition proceedings of award dated 06.07.2017 was challenged through writ petition before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court on the ground that whole proceedings are Coram Non Judice and have been conducted in violation of the mandatory procedure visualised by the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Advocate further argued that the learned High Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner in shape of the reference and necessary parties have also not been impleaded. The learned Advocate further argued that alternate remedy was not available because the case of the petitioner was not for apportionment or enhancement of the compensation rather being a co-sharer in the village, he claimed his share and entitlement in the shamilat deh land and in such circumstances the remedy of reference was not adequate. The learned Advocate further argued that the learned High Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine without having regard to the facts of the case rather it was enjoined upon the Court to admit the writ petition for regular hearing and provide the parties a chance for impleading necessary parties. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate has placed reliance on the case reported as [2015 SCR 1077].
4. Conversely , Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the other side argued that the petitioner , herein, is not an owner in the village rather is Moroosi Tenant, hence, not entitled to the share in shamilat deh land. The learned Advocate further argued that necessary parties were not impleaded in the line of respondents before the High Court and some new parties have been added in the memo of PLA without permission of the Court. The learned Advocate further argued that the owners in the village were necessary parties who received the compensation and without impleading them the writ petition was not competent. In support of his submissions, the learned Advocate has placed reliance on the case reported as [1997 SCR 107] and a judgment of the Shariat Court rendered in Major Ayub's case.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record made available, I am of the view that the question, as to whether , the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground of availability of alternate remedy , is a legal question of public importance requiring resolution in a regular appeal.
Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. The petitioners are directed to deposited security of Rs.1000/- within one month failing which the leave granting order shall automatically be deemed to have been rescinded. The office is directed to complete the file and place the same before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of the Bench.