1. ' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN. J.-This writ petition has been filed to challenge the validity of the order of the Administrator Auqaf, dated 25-2.1979 whereby shrine `Kamla Badshah' in village Mohra, Tehsil Nakyal, and the property attached to it have been taken over by the respondent under the provisions of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Waqf Properties Act of 1960. The case of the petitioners is that they are legal heirs of Sain Kamla Badshah, the Saint whose shrine and the other estate left by him have been taken over by the Auqaf Department as Waqf Property, whereas the disputed property was never dedicated to shrine, rather it was inherited by the petitioners, the heirs of said Saint. The impugned order has also been challanged on the ground that the same was not published in the official Gazette and, as such, cannot be deemed to be a valid notification within the meanings of section 7 of the Act known as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, ]960. The petitioners also assail the order passed by the Chief Executive, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government whereby the action taken by the Administrator, Auqaf was affirmed. The argument were heard on two preliminary points ; one raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the other by the counsel for the respondents. First dealing with the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be observed that the learned counsel has addressed exhaustive arguments w support of his contention that the impugned order issued by the Administrator Auqaf was not published in the official Gazette and, as such it cannot be treated as a valid Notification, under section 7 of the aforesaid Act. The learned counsel has referred to section 2 01) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 whereby the word "Notification" has been defined as a Notification published under proper authority in the official Gazette. The learned counsel has also cited A 1 R 1937 Pesh. 52, P L 1971 SC 82 and PLD 1972 Lah, 66, in support of his contention that it was a condition precedent for the validity of the Notification in question that it should have been published in the official Gazette.
2. ' So far as section 2 (41) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 is concerned it may be pointed cut that the aforesaid Act has not been adopted in Azad Kashmir. The General Clauses Act of 1897 was adopted in Azad Kashmir by virtue of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Adaptation of Laws Act, 1959. 1 he word "Notification" has not been defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is in force in Azad Kashmir and, therefore, there is no force in the argument that by virtue of definition given in the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, which has not been adopted in Azad Kashmir, the publication of the Notification in the official Gazette is a condition precedent for its validity.
3. ' In AIR 1937 Pesh. 52, it was held that as under section 4 (36) of the N.-W. F. P. General Clauses Act, the Notification has been defined to be a Notification which has been published in the official Gazette, the non-publication of the same being violative of the aforesaid provision, renders it as invalid.
4. ' In PLD 1971 SC 82, the publication of Notification in the official Gazette under section 2 (18) of the Act known as East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 was held necessary for the validity of the same because under section 2 (18) of the said Act, its publication in the official Gazette was mandatory.
5. ' In PLD 1972 Lah. 66, it was held that a particular item of the property which bad not been mentioned in the Notification issued under section 6 of the West Pakistan Waqf ' Properties Ordinance, could not be deemed to have been taken over by the Administrator Auqaf. It was further opined that Notification under section 6 of the aforesaid Ordinance could only be prospective and not retrospective in operation. It is evident that the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable because in those cases either by virtue of the application of the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act or by virtue of statutory provisions of any other law the publication of Notification in the official Gazette was mandatory. There is no such provision either in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, 1960 or in the General Clauses Act, 1897, which is in force in Azad Kashmir, making the publication of the aforesaid Notification in the official Gazette a condition precedent for its validity.
6. ' The word "Notification" has been defined in Webester's "New International Dictionary", as under "To bring before the public, as for sale or distribution ; to print, or cause to be printed, and to issue from the press, either for sale or general distribution, as a book, newspaper, piece of music, engraving, etc, It is evident from the above mentioned meanings of the word "Notification" that even printing of Notification would amount to publication and it is not necessary that such publication should be made necessarily by printing it in the official Gazette. We are fortified in or view by a case as PLD 1983 SC (A J & K 20) wherein it was held that as the relevant Ordinance did not visualise that the rules framed under the Ordinance should be published in the official Gazette, the non-publication of the rules would not render the same invalid or inoperative. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned Notification having not been published in the official Gazette is invalid, is without any substance.
7. ' Coming to the point raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners could challenge the impugned order by filing a petition to the District Judge under section 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Waqf Properties) Act. We have given or earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Under section 44 (2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, this Court would not exercise its writ jurisdiction until and unless it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy for the redress of the grievance is provided by law. There is a ring of authorities, both under the Pakistan Constitution as well as Indian Constitution, in support of the proposition that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked where any other adequate remedy is provided by law for the redress of a particular grievance. The only exception to the aforesaid general rule is that the remedy provided by general law should be expeditious, beneficial and officious. Under section 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, 1960, any person claiming an interest in an Waqf property in respect of which Notification has been issued, can seek a declaration from the District Judge that the property is not wakf property or it is so within the limits stated in the petition. An appeal has also been provided under section 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Propertied Act, 1960, to this Court, against the order of the District Judge, made under section 7 of the said Act. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the written statement shows that the moot point which needs determination relates to disputed question of fact as to whether the property taken over by the Administrator Auqaf was in the ownership of the petitioners because they inherited the same from Sain Kamla Badshah. This question, in or opinion, can be only resolved in proceedings visualised under section 7 of the said Act, after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. Therefore, in the instant case, it cannot be said that the remedy provided under section 7 of the aforesaid Act by way of petition to the District Judge is not adequate or efficacious, rather, in or view, there being disputed question of fact involved in the case, the same could be decided effectively only in the proceedings visualised under section 7 of the aforesaid Act.
8. In the light of what has been stated above, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents prevails and the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground that as the petitioners have failed to avail the remedy provided under sections 7 and 8 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, 1960, the writ petition is misconceived and incompetent.