Kh. Muhammad Naseem, J. Common factual and legal propositions are involved, in all the captioned appeals, by leave of the Court, hence, the same were heard together and being decided through the proposed consolidated judgment.
2. The facts of the case, as depicted from the record, are that on 30th of April, 1979, an Ordinance known as the Hill Station Housing Schemes Ordinance, 1979[1] was promulgated in Azad Jammu and Kashmir for establishment of Housing Schemes at Chhota Gala, Chikar and Dhirkot. Vide an award issued on 21.06.1979, the land measuring 301 kanal, 14 marla, was acquired for the purpose of Housing Scheme Chhota Gala. Vide notification dated 30.04.1979 a piece of crown land measuring 736 kanal, 18 marl a, was transferred in the name of Pubic Works Department (PW-D) Through another notification dated 23.05.1997 the same land was transferred to the 'Pearl Development Authority (PDA) and a mutation to this effect was also attested. It is alleged that in consequence of transfer of land to PDA, the development work was at its full swing. Thereafter, vide notification dated 10.10.2012, the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir cancelled both the aforementioned notifications. Through letter dated 08.03.2013, the PDA moved to Secretary Physical Planning and Housing department for cancellation of aforesaid notification, however, the proposal was not acceded to as is evident from the letter dated 23.04.2013. Feeling aggrieved from the notification dated 10.10.2012, PDA filed Writ Petition No. 55 of 2013, on 11.06.2013, before the High Court with the following prayers:- "Therefore, it is humbly prayed, that by admitting this petition for regular hearing:
1. It be declared that notification, Ann P-1, P- 2 is without lawful authority and of no legal consequence as against the right of petitioner.
2. It be further declared that effect emanating out of an ordinance cannot be abridged, obliterated or revoked by a notification issued by subordinate department.
3. It also be declared that rights created under an Ordinance cannot be rescinded except by an act of Assembly, or executive authority.
4. Further be declared that all actions taken, vesting of land through Ann P-3, allotments made, schemes executed have been executed, made implemented under law has become a past and closed transaction.
5. Respondents be directed not to cancel mutation No. 499 (Ann P-7) perpetually.
Any other relief as-admissible may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.
Another Writ Petition No. 95/2013 was also filed by Muhammad Naseem & 13 others to whom the plots were allotted in furtherance of establishment of Housing Scheme. Their precise grievance is that neither no objection certificate (NOC) has been issued to them nor possession of the plots has been delivered to carry out the construction on the spot. A Writ Petition No. 129 of 2013 was also filed by the landowners, from whom the land was acquired for the purpose of Housing Scheme, for deaward of the acquired land on the ground that the land is no more required for any public purpose. All the three writ petitions, were clubbed. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2019 accepted the writ petitions filed by PDA and allottees of the land and set aside the notification dated 10.10.2012 being issued without lawful authority, whereas, the writ petition filed by the landowners has been dismissed.
3. Sardar Shamshad Hussain Khan, Advocate, while representing the residents of village Jandali, Rawalakot i.e. Ilyas Jandalvi & others submitted that a huge piece of forest land measuring 736 kanal '18 rnarla was transferred to PWD for establishment of Housing Scheme at Chhota Gala, without seeking NOC from the forest department. A piece of land measuring 301 kanal 14 marla was also acquired for the said purpose. Thereafter, a number of 172 plots was created and allotted to different persons. More than 70 plots were allotted to non-state subjects in gross violation of State Subject law and rules. He added that the land measuring 736 kanal, 18 marla, is forest land situate at village Jandali. The severing of trees for the purpose of Housing Scheme was likely to cause environmental holocaust, hence, the residents of village Jandali stood against the cutting of trees and their efforts were equally supported by the environmental agencies. He added that after establishment of PDA, the entire land was transferred to PDA, who without any ground work, started allotting the plots to its favorites and non-state subjects. On protest and agitation raised by the residents of village and environmental agencies, the notification dated 10.10.2012 was issued through which the earlier notifications dated 30.04.1979 and 23.05.1997 were rightly cancelled. He further added that PDA, which is an attached department of Housing and Physical Planning under Schedule II, to the Rules of Business, 1985, filed an incompetent writ petition before the High Court, without obtaining sanction from the Government which is the necessary requirement under rule 29 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Law Department Manual, 1984,[2] hence, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this sole ground but the learned High Court illegally accepted the same through the impugned judgment. In this context, he placed reliance on the cases reported as Raja Nasim & others vs. Ehtesab Bureau & others (2004 SCR 274) and Ch. Muhammad Yasin vs. Sardar Muhammad Naeem Khan & others [2010 SCR 17]. Even otherwise, PDA was not an aggrieved person, which is a pre-condition for issuance of writ. He further added that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the power to issue a notification incudes to rescind the same, hence, the notifications dated 30.04.1979 and 23.05.1997 were legally recalled by the Government through notification dated 10.10.2012, after consultation with Chairman PDA., He added that the land measuring 736 kanal, 18 marla, was transferred to PWD while considering the same as Khalsa land, whereas, the said land was a demarcated forest as is evident from the entries incorporated in the revenue record i.e., Shikar Gah. The wdrd "Khalsa land" as defined under Section 2(v) of the AJ&K Regularization of Nautors and Grant of Khalsa lands Ordinance, 1974 does not include the demarcated forests. Under Section 2(viii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Regulation of 1930 demarcated forest means forest land or waste land under the control of the Forest Department.
The power to declare a forest no longer as demarcated, vests in the Government under Section 9 of the Forest Regulation of 1930 which can be done by notification in the official gazette. Without declaring the aforesaid land no longer demarcated, the same could not have been transferred to PWD that too by the Secretary Revenue. In the given circumstances, the learned High Court fell in error of law while accepting the writ petition filed by PDA.
4. While arguing in appeal No. 04/2022, he submitted that in view of issuance of notification dated 10.10.2012 the acquired land is no more required for any public purpose, hence, the same is liable to restored to the original Owners but the learned High Court failed to take into account this important aspect of the matter and illegally dismissed the writ petition filed by the land owners.
5. Ch. Aqif-ud-Din, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the Forest Department adopted the arguments advanced by Sardar Shamshad Hussain Khan, Advocate. Additionally, he submitted that the writ petition filed by PDA is hit by the principle of lathes, hence, the same was liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. He added that the land under the possession of Forest Department was illegally transferred to PWD without obtaining NOC from the Forest Department. He added that a Committee was constituted to resolve the controversy who submitted its recommendations.
Although, the learned High Court relied upon recommendation No. 3 of the Committee in the impugned judgment but it has been ignored that in the same recommendations it was recommended that the forest land should be restored to Forest Department. He further added that the observations made by the High Court that the allottees have not been provided an opportunity of hearing, is also incorrect because PDA has also acquired the land from the private persons and on the said land the Housing Scheme can be finalized. He further added that the initial order dated 30.04.1979 through which the forest land was transferred to PWD is void ab initio being issued from the Revenue Secretariat without obtaining the approval from the Government, hence, the said void order was rightly recalled through impugned notification dated 10.10.2012 which is liable to be maintained while setting aside the impugned judgment.
6. Conversely, Sardar Jahandad Khan Mughal, Advocate, the learned counsel representing PDA submitted that under forest laws the forests are of two kinds i.e. (i) demarcated forest; and (ii) undemarcated forest. According to Section 2 of Forest Regulations of 1930, an undemarcated forest means and includes all forest land and waste land (other than demarcated forest and such waste land or forest berun line as is under the management and control of the Revenue Department) which is the property of the Government whereas, demarcated forest means the forest land or waste land under the control of Forest Department. According to him, the disputed land is not demarcated forest as no process of demarcation has ever been conducted under Section 3 of Forest Regulations of 1930. In absence of any such process, the entries made in the revenue record are ineffective. In fact, as per Section 14-A of Forest Regulations of 1930, the disputed land is village forest/Khalsa/Community Forest which is under the control of Government, hence, under Section 7 of Regularization of Nautors and grant of Khalsa Land Ordinance, 1974, the Government may make special grants of such land. Furthermore, under Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Khalsa Land (Ground Rent and Lease) Rules, 1985, the Government may transfer Khalsa land, to any of the Government department for construction of buildings, stadiums, play grounds, or for the establishment of farms, nurseries or for similar other purposes. As the disputed land was the property of the Government, hence, the same was rightly transferred to PWD and subsequently in favour of PDA for establishment of Housing Scheme. He further added that the notification dated 10.10.2012 has been issued in disregard of Rule 12 of the Rules of Business, 1985. It has been further argued that the notification dated 23.05.1997 was issued in the light of an Act of Parliament and by decision of the Cabinet. The rights and liabilities created through legislation cannot be superseded or made ineffective by a subordinate legislation such as impugned notification. If this practice is allowed then any department will practically be set free to cancel or modify any Act made by the Parliament, hence, the learned High Court being the custodian of law has rightly set aside the impugned notification. It is amazing that the notifications issued by the Revenue Department have been cancelled by the forest Department, whereas, no one can be a judge in his own cause.
Furthermore, no notice of hearing before issuance of notification dated 10.10.2012 has ever been issued either to PDA or to the allottees of the land. It is the settled principle of law that, no one can be condemned unheard. In the given circumstances, the learned High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment which is not open for interference by this Court.
7. Sardar Javed Nisar, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the allottees, Muhammad Naseem & others, submitted that his only grievance is that the land was duly allotted to the allottees, hence, their rights should have been protected.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available alongwith the impugned judgment. During the course of arguments in Civil Appeal No 02/2022 (Ilyas Jandalvi & others vs. PDA & others), a query was made to the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment is consolidated one through which three writ petitions have been decided, whereas, the appellants have failed to annex with the memo of appeal the copies of all the three writ petitions, which is a mandatory requirement under Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978; he failed to rebut the same. This proposition has been dealt with authoritatively by this Court in the case reported as Syed Abid Hussain Shah & others vs. Administrator Auqaf & others [2015 SCR 1220] in the following manner:- "7. The provisions of Order XIII, rule 3 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the same merits dismissal of petition for leave to appeal/appeal. For proper appreciation Rule 3 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 is reproduced as under:- Rule 3 of Order XIII
3. (1) The petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of:-
(i) his petition for special leave to appeal;
(ii) the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court and the order of the High Court refusing grant of certificate under Section 42(11) of the Constitution, if any, one copy each of which shall be certified to be correct;
(iii) .........................................................................................................................................................
(iv) .........................................................................................................................................................
The same proposition as is involved in the instant case came under consideration of this Court in the case reported as Ch. Ajaib Hussain and another vs. Mst. Zareen Akhtar and 11 others (2000.
SCR 70) in the circumstances that two writ petitions in the High Court were heard and disposed off together.
The writ petition filed by Ch. Ajaib Hussain & others was dismissed while the other filed by Zareen Akhtar & others was accepted. Ch. Ajaib Hussain and others filed petition for leave to appeal and filed a copy of the memo of writ petition with the petition for leave to appeal. An objection was raised that the writ petition in the High Court was amended and instead of filing the copy of amended writ petition, the appellants- petitioners have filed the copy of the original writ petition, which is not in existence after filing of the amended writ petition, therefore, petition for leave to appeal/appeal is not maintainable. The counsel for the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay and filing of copy of memo of amended writ petition. This Court observed that the provisions of Order XIII, Rule 3 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of these provisions of Rules merits dismissal of petition for leave to appeal/appeal. It was also observed that the appellants were not vigilant in filing the petition for leave to appeal/appeal. The application for condonation of delay and permission for filing the copy of the amended writ petition was also dismissed. It was observed at page 73 of the report as under: `Clause (ii) reproduced above lays down clearly that certified copies of three documents have to be attached with the petition for leave to appeal which are:
(i) judgment and order sought to be appealed from;
(ii) grounds of 'appeal' or 'application' before the High Court and;
(iii) order of the High Court refusing grant of certificate, if any.
As is clear, grounds of appeal or application are required to be filed with the petition for leave to appeal. The word "application" Without any doubt covers all sorts of applications which can be moved before the High Court resulting in the judgment against which petition for leave to appeal is filed in this Court, be it a bail application or an application for revision, for grant or vacation of a stay order, or transfer application.'
At page 77, it was further held as under: 'The fact that copies were obtained and were misplaced does not make out a case of condonation which can only be granted if sufficient cause is shown. We have gone through all the previous judgment in which appeals were dismissed for the fatal defect under discussion and find that the condonation was not granted to any appellant.'
Again the matter recently came under the consideration of this Court in the case titled Muhammad Azam and others vs. Khadim Hussain and others (Civil Appeal No. 68/2013, decided on 14th February, 2015). In the said case, two appeals were decided through a consolidated judgment. Along with the petition for leave to appeal/appeal the copy of memorandum of only one appeal was filed. This Court dismissed the appeal. It was observed as under: `We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, From the judgment & decree of the District Juge, Sudhnoti dated 16th August, 2006, two appeals; one titled Muhammad Azam & others vs. Khadim Hussain and others, Bearing No. 34/2005 and second; Nazar Muhammad & others vs. Khadim Hussain & others, Bearing No. 55/2006 were filed by the appellants in the High Court. Both the appeals were dismissed by the High Court through a consolidated judgment on 30th October, 2012. Rule 3 of Order XIII of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Supreme. Court Rules, 1978, provides the documents which shall be filed along with the petition for leave to appeal. The same is reproduced as under: Rule 3 of Order XIII
3. (1) The petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of:--
(i) his petition for special leave to appeal;
(ii) the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court and the order of the High Court refusing grant of certificate under Section 42(11) of the Constitution, if any, one copy each of which shall be certified to be correct;
(iii) ..................................................................................................................................................
(iv) ...................................................................................................................................................
A perusal of rule makes it mandatory that 'petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of the petition for leave to appeal from the judgment and order sought to be appealed together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court. The provisions of above mentioned Rule are mandatory and non-compliance results into dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal. This Court in a number of cases has observed that provisions of Rule are mandatory and non- compliance of Rule 3 of Order XIII results into dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal. It was observed in case titled Ch. Ajaib Hussain and another vs. Mst. Zareen Akthar and 11 others [2000 SCR 70], which is as under: `From these provisions it is clear that grounds of the application filed before the petition for leave to appeal and that an application includes one under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir interim Constitution Act. As held in a number of cases mentioned above, omission to file copy of the application is a fatal defect for which the appeal has to be dismissed."'
The aforesaid principle of law is fully applicable to the case in hand, hence, Civil Appeal No. 02/2022 (Ilyas Jandalvi & others vs. PDA & others) is hereby dismissed on account of non- compliance of mandatory requirement of Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978.
9. Coming to the fate of Civil Appeal No. 03/2022 (forest Department & another vs. PDA & others), first of all, we would like to resolve the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for Respondents No. 26 to 51, Sardar Shamshad Hussain, Advocate, regarding competency of writ petition filed by PDA. It is contended by the learned counsel that PDA is an attached department under Schedule II of the Rules of Business. 1985. Rule 29 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Law Department Manual. 1984. provides that no suit (which also includes writ) on behalf of the State or a public officer as such shall be instituted without the sanction of the Minister Incharge of the Law Department, the writ petition has been filed by PDA without sanction of the Government, hence, was liable to be dismissed on this sole score. On the other hand, it has been contended that PDA is an autonomous body which according to the statutory provisions is a legal person having legal right to sue and be sued. On this legal position, the provisions of the Law Department Manual, 1984 regarding Government sanction for filing suit writ are not applicable. In our estimation, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable. PDA is an autonomous body, which is creation of the Pearl Development Authority Act, 1993. Section 4 of Act, 1993 postulates that: "4. Constitution of the Authority.--(1) There shall be established an Authority to be known as the Pearl Development Authority for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Authority shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with powers subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable and shall by the said name sue and be sued."
Thus, PDA being a corporate body having perpetual succession and a common seal, is a legal person having legal right to sue and be sued. The statutory provision of general law i.e., Law Department Manual, 1984 are not attracted in presence of special law, i.e., Act, 1993, hence, in relation to litigation by PDA, the sanction by the Government is not required for filing or defending any case in the Courts. The proposition has already been dealt with by this Court in the case reported as AKMIDC vs. Muhammad Shafique & others [2015 SCR 882]. It would be appropriate to refer here the relevant part of the judgment as follows: "6. We would like to firstly, resolve the objection raised by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 regarding the competency of appeal without sanction of the Government. According to the version of the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, for filing of appeal on behalf of appellants, herein, under the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Law Department Manual, 1984, (hereinafter to be referred as Law Department Manual), and the principle of law laid down by this Court in the cases reported as Raja Nasim and 2 others vs. Ehtesab Bureau AJ&K [2004 SCR 274] and Ehtesab Bureau Azad Jammu & Kashmir vs. Ch. Muhammad Hanif, [2004 SCR 284], sanction of the Government is mandatory whereas, this appeal has been filed without required sanction. On the other hand, it has been submitted that the AKMIDC is an autonomous body which according to the statutory provision, is a legal person having legal right to sue and be sued. In this legal position, the provisions of the Law Department Manual regarding Government sanction for filing of appeal are not applicable.
7. The AKMIDC is a statutory body constituted under the statute known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as Act, 1971). Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of this Act reads as follows: '3 (1) ............................................................................................................................................................
(2) The Corporation shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession, and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act to acquire and hold property, both moveable and immoveable and shall by the said name sue and be sued."
Thus, under this statutory provision, the authority is vested in the autonomous body to sue.
8. The term "sue" in this statutory provision, in our opinion is used in a broader sense including all types of litigations. The statutory provision of general law i.e., Law Department Manual are not attracted in presence of special law, i.e. Act, 1971, hence, in relation to litigation by the AKMIDC, sanction of the Government is not required for filing or defending any case in the Courts. On this legal proposition taking into consideration the parimateria provisions in the judgment reported as Chief Administrator Auqaf & another vs. Karram Hussain & others (2013 SCR 621), this Court has observed as under: '8. The present appeal has been filed by the Chief Administrator Auqaf. The Act, 1960 is a special law. Section 3 of the Act deals with the appointment of Administrator of Waqf Properties, which is reproduced as under:- '3. Appointment of Administrator of Waqfs.--(1) Government shall appoint an Administrator of Waqfs for the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Territory.
(2) No person shall be appointed as Administrator unless he is a Muslim and possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by Government.
(3) The Administrator shall be a corporation sole by the name of the Administrator of Waqfs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Territory and shall have perpetual succession and an official seal, and may sue and be sued in his corporate name.
(4) The Administrator shall be subject to the general control of Government.'
A perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, 1960, reproduced above, makes it abundantly clear that the Administrator shall be a Corporation by the name of Administrator of Waqfs Azad Jammu & Kashmir territory and shall have perpetual succession, official seal and may sue and be sued in his corporate name. The provisions of Waqf Properties Act make it clear that all the property shall vest in the Administrator, who is defined as Corporation. The word "Corporation" according to Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary means "an artificial person created by law, consisting of one or more natural persons united in one body under such grants as secure a succession of the body, and empowered to act in a certain capacity or to transact business of some designated form or nature like a natural person." The Administrator under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1960 is a Corporation and he can sue or be sued in his corporate name. Under the said provision, he has power to defend any suit, appeal or application filed against him and has power to initiate proceedings including the suit, application, appeal etc in his name. The provisions of Law Department Manual are not applicable in the case filed under the Act, 1960. The Administrator is fully empowered to institute proceedings including petition for leave to appeal and appeal.
The corporation is a legal body constituted by law and is a juristic person having independent and distinct entity of its own in the case reported as United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar & others [AIR 1997 Supreme Court 31], it was observed as under: '10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name.
Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader-, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6, Rule 14 together with Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29, can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and dehors Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorize any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorized to sign the pleading on behalf of the company, for example, by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by e power of attorney being executed it favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can on the basis of the evidence on record, ad after taking all the circumstances of the case, especially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.'
In the case reported as Noor Textile Mills Ltd., Shorkot through Syed Jamaat Ali Shah, Managing Director & another vs. Jamail Akhtar Naseeb, Textile Consultant, Faisalabad [2001 CLC 1065], it was observed as under: '.... It is axiomatic that a limited concern is a juristic person having independent and distinct entity of its own. It need not be sued through anybody. Simple description of a limited company is enough.'
In the case reported as United Bank Ltd. vs. Shahyar Textile Mills Ltd. & 3 others [1996 CLC 106], it was observed as under: '.... It will, thus, be seen that the directors of the plaintiff are empowered to exercise all the powers of the company which includes the power to file a suit. They are further empowered to authorize any Manager or officer of the company to perform all or any of the powers and authorities of the directors, and to delegate any of the powers to any Manager or officer of the plaintiff. The power of attorney has obviously been given in exercise of powers granted to the Directors by the Articles of Association.'
Rule 1 of Order XXIX, CPC, postulates that in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the Secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the same. Since the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Waqf Properties Act, 1960 is a special law and under Section 3(3) the Administrator Auqaf is declared to be a Corporation, who has power to sue and be sued under perpetual succession, the provisions of the Law Manual and requirements of the Government sanction for prosecution are not attracted. The objection is repelled. The appeals have competently been filed.'
9. So far as the application of the case law cited, as Raja Nasim and 2 others vs. Ehtesab Bureau AJ&K [2004 SCR 274] and Ehtesab Bureau Azad Jammu & Kashmir vs. Ch. Muhammad Hanif [2004 SCR 284] is concerned, the principle of law in these cases has been laid down while interpreting the statutory provision of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 which is lacking the pari-materia provision like that of the AKMIDC Act, 1971, according to which AKMIDC is a legal person vested with the status to sue and be sued. Our this view finds further support from the statutory provision of Rule 47 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business, 1985 which reads as under: ''The special institution and autonomous bodies are the independent organs in the sphere of their functions assigned to them under the relevant laws but are attached department for administrative and financial purposes.'
After combined analysis of the provision of sub-section 2 of Section 3 of Act, 1971 read with. Rule 47 of the Rules of Business, 1985, it becomes obviously clear that the autonomous bodies are the independent organs in the sphere of their functions assigned to them under the relevant laws.
Thus, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the counsel. for Respondent No. 1 being without any legal substance stands repelled."
In view of the above, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, being devoid of any force, is hereby repelled.
10. The objection raised by the learned counsel representing the Forest Department is that the writ petitions were barred by limitation but the learned High Court has not considered this important aspect of the case while passing the impugned judgment. It is worth mentioning that the validity of the notification dated 10.10.2012 was challenged through writ petitions filed on 11.06.2013, 16.08.2013 and 02.11.2013, without explaining the delay caused in filing the writ petitions. In the case reported as Azad Govt. & others vs. Haji Sumamndar Khan & others [1995 SCR 259], the writ petitions before the High Court were belated by 5 to 8 months. No reasonable explanation was given, hence, the writs were held to be hit by laches. The same situation exists in the instant matter. The writ petitions have been filed after delay of 8 to 12 months without offering any explanation, hence, it is declared that the writ petitions filed before the High Court were hit by the principle of laches.
11. Now we would like to discuss the merits of the case. A perusal of the record reveals that on 30th of April, 1979 an Ordinance known as the Hill Station Housing Schemes Ordinance, 1979 (LIV of 1979) was promulgated which later on was passed by the Assembly as. an Act. The purpose of said Ordinance was to set up the Housing Schemes in Chhota Gala, Chikar and Dhirkot. For establishment of a Housing Scheme in Chhota Gala, the land measuring 301 kanal 14 marla was acquired vide award dated 21.06.1979 and handed over to PWD. Besides this, the land measuring 736 kanal 18 marla was also transferred to PWD vide order dated 30.04.1979. The wording used in order dated 30.04.1979 is as under: It appears that the aforesaid land was transferred while showing it as Khalsa land. At this stage, we would like to resolve the controversy regarding status of the disputed land. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, the disputed land was forest land, hence, the same was illegally transferred to PWD, without obtaining NOC from the Forest Department, whereas, the stance of the counsel representing PDA is that the disputed land is Village Forest/Khalsa/Community Forest which being the property of the Government was rightly transferred. It is necessary to draw a distinction between Khalsa land and Forest land. "Khalsa land' has been defined under Section 2(v) of the AJ&K Regularization of Nautors and Grant of Khalsa Lands Ordinance, 1974, as under: "(v) "Khalsa land" means the land which is entered in the revenue record as such or which may be entered as such on any future date under any law, but it does not include the demarcated forest and such other lands 'which are required for village common purpose."
It is very much clear that Khalsa land does not include the demarcated forest. Under Section 2 of Forest Regulations of 1930, "Demarcated Forest" means forest land or waste land under the control of the Forest Department constituted as demarcated forest under Section 3, whereas, "undemarcated forest" means and includes all forest land and waste land (other than demarcated forest and such waste land or forest berun line as is under the management and control of the Revenue Department) which is the property of the Government and is not appropriated for any specific purpose. The proceedings of demarcation are conducted in accordance with the Rules framed under Section 3 Forest Regulations of 1930. Under Section 4, the management and control of demarcated forests is vested in the Forest Department. We have gone through the revenue record appended with the appeal filed by the Forest Department, which postulates that before transfer of the disputed land to PWD and thereafter PDA, it was entered in the revenue record as i.e. forest land. Although, the learned counsel representing PDA, has raised an objection that no process of demarcation has ever been conducted, hence, the entries made in the revenue record are ineffective, however, we are of the view that the entries made in the revenue record have got the presumption of truth until and unless anything contrary is proved. In this state of affairs, we have no hesitation in holding that the disputed land was forest land and not Khalsa land, hence, its transfer without adopting proper procedure and obtaining NOC from the. Forest Department, was illegal.
12. It may also be stated here that under Section 9 of Forest Regulations of 1930 the Government may, by notification in the Government Gazette, declare that from a date fixed by such notification any demarcated forest or any portion thereof shall cease to be a demarcated forest, and from the date so fixed, such forest, or a portion shall cease to be demarcated. Nothing is on the record that the disputed land was declared no longer demarcated and thereafter transferred to PWD.
In his arguments, the learned counsel for PDA attempted to establish that under Section 14-A of the Forest Regulations of 1930, the disputed land is a village forest/ Khalsa/Community Forest, which being the Government property can be transferred to any department under Section 7 of Regularization of Nautors and Grant of Khalsa Lands Ordinance, 1974 read with Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Khalsa Land Rules (Ground Rent and Lease), 1985, for public purposes. If for the sake of argument, the disputed land is deemed a community forest even then the claim of PDA is not tenable. Under Section 2(xiii) of Forest Regulations of 1930, 'Forest land' means and includes demarcated forests, un-demarcated forests, Community Forests, water bodies and all other commercial and non-commercial piece of land (with or without trees or other vegetation) throughout AJK territory under ownership, occupation and management & control of the Forest Department of Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Hence, 'Forest Land' is of wider scope and includes the community forest. Through an amendment Section 13-A has been added in Forest Regulations of 1930 which reads as under: "13-A. Community Forests.--(1) The Management and Control of the Community Forests shall vest with the Forest Department.
(2) Community Forest means shamilat deh areas, under the control of Forest Department, which shall be managed and developed by Forest Department on behalf of Deh Council. The provisions of the said Regulation and rules made there under shall apply to these forests. The expenditure incurred on management and development thereof shall be deducted and the net income shall be treated as revenue of Deh Council.
In view of the above, the management and control of the Community Forest also vests in the Forest Department, hence, it becomes immaterial that the disputed land is demarcated forest or community forest. The fact remains that it was the 'forest land', hence, the same could not have been transferred to any other department without obtaining NOC from the Forest Department.
14. Resorting back to the facts of the case, after issuance of order dated 30.04.1979, another notification was issued on 23.05.1997 through which the Project of I lousing Scheme was shifted to PDA. It appears from the record that the act of the establishment of Housing Scheme at forest land was resisted by the residents of the locality as well as the environmental agencies. In this regard a complaint was also filed before the Ehtesab Bureau of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. On 09.08.2010, the then Chairman Ehtesab Bureau wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and recommended for cancellation of aforesaid notifications. It is apt to reproduce the referred letter as follows: No. E.B/T.B/FC/W/0661-0664/2010, dated 08.08.2010 (Underling is ours)
Thereafter, the Government while realizing the sensitivity of the issue, recalled the notifications dated 30.04.1979 and 23.05.1997, through the impugned notification dated 10.10.2012. Despite the fact that the Chairman PDA conceded to before the Chairman Khtcsab Bureau then, that the status of forest land should be restored, a writ petition was filed by the PDA before the High Court whereby the notification dated 10.10.2012 was challenged. Two other writ petitions were also filed by 14 allottees, to whom the awarded land was allotted and the landowners, from whom the land was acquired. The learned High Court while accepting the writ petitions filed by PDA and the allottees of the plots, cancelled the notification dated 10.10.2012, whereas, the writ petition filed by the landowners was dismissed.
15. During the proceedings before the High Court, vide notification dated 20.05.2019, for resolution of the dispute, between the PDA. and Forest Department, the Government constituted a Committee consisting of Commissioner, Poonch (Chairman), Conservator Forest and Chairman PDA (Members). The Committee so constituted filed its report, wherein, besides other, following recommendation was made:- It is amazing that the Chairman PDA is one of the signatories of the above recommendations but despite this PDA kept pursuing the matter in the writ petition against its own recommendations. The aforesaid recommendations are very lengthy, however, only a portion has been reproduced. The learned High Court while taking into consideration some of the wordings declared the recommendations in favour of PDA and accepted the writ petition, whereas, in our estimation the aforesaid recommendations can be summarized and described in a single sentence that "the forest land must be protected at any cost". Therefore, the observations of the High Court in the impugned judgment that "the report of the Committee is suggestive that the land in question be given to PDA for its conservation and protection", are result of misconception.
16. So far as the contention of the learned Advocate representing the PDA that the impugned notification has been issued without providing an opportunity of hearing to PDA or allottees, vide notification dated 10.10.2012, the disputed land was reverted back to the forest department and the allotments in favour of the allottees have been made from the acquired land, hence, the rights of the allottees have not been affected. The learned High Court also fell in error of law while holding that the principle of locus poenitentia is attracted in the present case. In fact, the Government has recalled the illegal notifications whereby forest land was transferred for the purpose of Housing Scheme, so there was no occasion to provide an opportunity of hearing to PDA prior to issuance' of notification dated 10.10.2012.
17. The next contention of the learned counsel for PDA is that notification issued by the Secretary Revenue has been recalled by the Forest Department which is not permissible under law. We are afraid, such argument is based upon misconception of law. The issuing authority of both the notifications was the Government, whereas, the notifications were issued from the concerned Secretariats, hence, it cannot be said that the notification issued by one department has been cancelled by the other department.
18. So far as the grievance of allottees, Muhammad Naseem & 13 others; is concerned, it may be stated here that through award issued on 21.06.1979, the land measuring 301 kanal 14 marla was awarded and allotted to the allottees. Through notification dated 10.10.2012 the forest land has been reverted back to the Forest Department and awarded private land is still intact, hence, the land already allotted to the allottees has not been affected at all.
19. So far as Appeal No. 04/2022 filed by the landowners is concerned, their claim is that the disputed land be restored to them. The prayer clause of the writ petition filed by them reads as under: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that alter hearing the petitioners, the land survey Nos.603, 610, 611, 614, 616, 618, 619, 620, 621, 1074/622,1073/622, 623, 1071/624, 625, 625, 629, 1067/711, 1068/711, 1068/711, 1068/711, 712, 717, 750, 750/1 which were belcngs to the petitioners which were acquired by the respondents on 23.02.1979 for establishing a Housing Scheme Chhotagala which was materialized to the extent of partition of plots later on 10.10.2012 a notification was issued to cancel the notification dated 30.04.1979, whereby the Housing Scheme was established. Land has been left abandon by the aforesaid notification an the purpose for which the land was acquired has been infructuous The possession and ownership of the aforesaid disputed land may be restored to the petitioners in accordance with the law. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems proper may please be awarded."
The landowners want restoration of their land on the basis of misconception. In fact, the notification dated 30.04.1979 relates to transfer of forest land which was subsequently cancelled.
The awarded private land measuring 301 kanal 14 marla is still intact, which has been further allotted to the allottees, hence, the landowners have got no case at all.
20. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are constrained to accept appeal titled Forest Department & another vs. PDA (Civil Appeal No. 3/2022), while dismissing the other two appeals.
The impugned judgment Of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, all the three writ petitions filed before the High Court are dismissed subject to clarification made in paragraph 18 above.
21. We may observe here, that globally the human. life is facing environmental and climate changes. Apart from others, the deforestation is a primary contributor to climate change. Land use changes, especially in the form of deforestation are the second largest anthropogenic source of atmosphere carbon dioxide emissions, after fossils fuel combustion. Moreover, deforestation has a great impact on the system in different ways, Climate change is influenced by deforestation because trees influence weather directly. The water cycle on earth is negatively affected by deforestation. The existence of water vapor in the atmosphere is maintained by trees. Trees and other forest vegetation are important in preventing water pollution because they prevent the contaminated run off in to the water sources like rivers, lakes etc. Without trees pollution of water is more frequent and therefore the water will be unsafe for consumption by human and animals. The Supreme Court of India in a case reported as "M/s. Yashwant Stone Works vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others" (MR 1988 Allahabad 121), while highlighting the importance of the Forest has held that:- "It is well known that the breaking up of the soil or the clearing of the forest land affects seriously reafforestation or regeneration of forests and therefore, such breaking up of the soil can only be permitted after taking into consideration all aspect of the questions such as the overall advantages and disadvantages to the economy of the country, environmental conditions, ecological imbalance that is likely to occur, its effects on the flora and the fauna in the area etc."
25. In Encyclopaedia Britrannica, Vol. 9, page, 614, some of the forest values have been given. It has been said: It is essentially a community-technically known as an eco system in which trees are dominant form of vegetation but in which other plants, animals, Soil and the area all play an important role.
Amongst the important services rendered by the forest are control of Soil Erosion, protection of watersheds and a melioration of local climate. The forest canopy breaks the forest of the violent rainfall on the Soil. The decaying leaves and twigs make the Soil more porous and, therefore, more effective reservoir for the storage of water"
All the public properties and natural resources vests in the Government. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known as the "Doctrine of Public Trust". It was founded on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and the air were held by the Government, in trusteeship to this legal doctrine. The said resources being gift of nature, should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status of life. The Doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect these resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. The Supreme Court of India in a case reported as "M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath and others" [(1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 388], wherein the part of the protected forest was given on lease to a motel, has held as under:- "36. Coming to the facts of the present case, large area of the bank of River Beas which is part of protected forest has been given on a lease purely for commercial purposes to the Motels. We have no hesitation in holding that the Himachal Pardesh Government committed patent breach of Public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management. Both the lease transactions are in patent breach of the trust held by the State Government. The second lease granted in the year 1994 was virtually of the land which is a part of the riverbed. Even the Board in its report has recommended de-leasing of the said area. "
Similarly, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a ease reported as "Naimatullah Khan vs. Federation of Pakistan" (2020 SCMR 1499), wherein, the land owned by KPT was leased out to a housing society, has cancelled the lease on the ground that it may badly affect the ecological system and environment. It was held that: "We also notice that grounds raised in the instant application were also raised and argued in great detail on behalf of PKT including the ground that sanction of the Federal Government had been obtained for leasing, transferring or selling out KPT property for Housing Societies to its officers and servants, However, we did not find any substance in this argument for the reason that even the Federal Government does not have the authority to sanction an Act which is not supposed by statuary dispensation and has a direct negative impact on the ecology and environment in which future generations of the people of Pakistan have an overriding and inherent interest. As far as the argument that other lands have been leased out by KPT in the past, Suffice it to say, the said transactions are not before us and in any event, one alleged illegality does not furnish justification to repeat yet another illegality and in any event two wrongs does not make one right.
13. After hearing all the concerned and dealing with all possible grounds raised by KPT and others we came to the conclusion that the Board of Trustees were not authorized by law to create Housing Societies for its officers and servants and such transfer or sale of property /land of the Port to its own officers and servants were illegal and all actions of the Board of Trustees were contrary from the mandate of KPT Act and were thus declared to be wholly illegal being void ab initio. As a consequence, we directed that all leases, transfers or sales of the property /land of the Port to its officers and servants being illegal, such leases, transfers and sales were cancelled. We further directed that if any lease amount had been received by KPT from any of its officers, servants or workers in respect of lease, transfer or sales of land in question the Board of Trustees shall immediately refund such amount to the officers, servants and workers and it shall also pay as compensation the difference between the value of the money received at that time and the value of the money currently prevailing meaning thereby that in order to offset the depreciation of the money by inflation, the KPT Board of Trustees was directed to pay markup at the bank rates for the numbers of year it had held the money in question. It has also been pointed out to us that after allotment of plots of land to officers/employees in the Society they have sold leasehold rights to third parties, multiple transfers have taken place and that the last buyer who appears in the records of KPT should be entitled to receive the refund/compensation as above. We have already passed an order in this regard, having found substance in the arguments. However, for avoidance of doubt it is clarified that KPT would not be obliged to pay the differential between the value at which the land was allotted and current market value of the land. The allottees shall only be entitled to receive the amount initially received by KPT together with up-to-date mark up by initiating proceeding before the competent fora. Further, the differential in the market value may be recovered by the claimant/ current owner of leasehold rights from the party from which it had purchased the plots in question through appropriate proceedings before the competent forum.
22. Before parting with, we would like to observe here in the public interest that Chhota Gala/Banjonsa Lake is a tourist resort. Surrounded by dense blue pine forest, mountains and lush green fields, it was a beautiful spot in the past but at present the place is full of garbage. The lake water is totally green due to algae. Instead of taking steps for protection of this valuable place to generate a huge revenue, the concerned are intended to ruin it by establishing a Housing Scheme nearby it. Surely, a Housing Scheme cannot be established without cutting the trees. It is unfortunate, catastrophic and shocking that the forests of the country are now almost extinct at decreasing rate. The deforestation is leading to increase in the spread of life-threatening diseases.
The fauna and flora are better served by the natural growth of trees than the mountains of iron, cement and concrete. Moreover, the Banjonsa Lake surrounded by blue Pine Forest and other green bushes, is consisted of sharp slope bedrocks and cutting of sharp slope bedrocks may cause tons of siltation in the Mangla Dam as the natural course of water from Banjonsa Lake leads to Magla Dam Reservoir. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in an identical Suo Moto Case reported as (2010 SCM R 361) took the cognizance of the matter regarding establishment of New Murree Development Project in the Shamilat Deh land; on the following note, initiated by Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, in the following manner: "The report of the International Union of Conservation of Natural Resources (IUCN) submitted to the Government and published on the front page in Daily "The News" dated 29' March, 2005 makes starling and shocking disclosures about the apprehended adverse environmental impact of the proposed New Murree Project. The findings, if true, warrant serious attentions of all those concerned with the conservation of the Forests, Supply of Clean Water to the Twin Cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad issues of siltation is Simly and Mangla Dams. The issues raised are likely to affect public-at-large with particular reference to the Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, i.e. the Right to life ...
The patriate Forest according to the afore-referred report has a, highly fragile eco-system and was declared as reserved forest, as far back as 1886 is going to receive the worst blow i.e. at least 50% of the existing standing stock of 1.4 million confer trees are likely to be cut. Imploring protection of this valuable forest reserve the report maintains that "the development of new township could result in the catastrophes like loss of protective forest cover resulting in more rapid runoff following storm event; higher peak stream flows; increased soil erosion; reduced groundwater infiltration; stream channel instability; and increased sedimentation...." Such adverse changes in watershed hydrologic conditions result in degradation of water quality for the population particularly residing in Islamabad, the report said, demanding, "to avoid such compound disasters and to ensure supply of safe water for twin cities, the valuable Patriata forests have to be preserved. "To develop new city by cutting sharp- slope bedrocks will further aggravate the situation for new city and will cause heavy siltation in the Simly and Mangla dams."
This move, it is said would cause serious damage to be ongoing Mangal Dam raising project, which was approved at a total cost of Rs. 62,552 billion including foreign exchange component of Rs. 9.6 billion. The main objective of the project was to raise Mangla Dam by 30 ft to regain the lost storage capacity due to silting and heavy sedimentation.
23. We would also like to highlight here the benefits of the forests by reproducing here an extract from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore delivered in the case reported as Sheikh Asim Farooq vs. Federation of Pakistan & others [PLD 2019 Lahore 664], as follows: "8. It may be noted that the National Environment Information System (NEIMS), a project of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), had published a Research Report in 2010 detailing the environment and biodiversity and ecological zones in Pakistan from forests to mountains and threatened flora and fauna and threatened species of animals. The report suggests that deforestation rate in Pakistan is estimated at 0.2% to 0.5% annually, which is the highest in the world and accounts for 4-6% decline in its wood biomass per annum. The total natural forest cover has reduced from 3.59 million hectares to 3.32 million hectares at an average rate of 27,000 hectares annually. The natural resource is decreasing at such an alarming speed that all the forest area will be consumed within the next few years. Some of the extracts from the Research Report are as follows:
1. Pakistan is a Forest Poor Country: Only 4.72 million hectares or 5.36% of its land mass is covered with forests. Table 1.7 of the Report suggests that there is declining forestation trend during the years 2000-2009.
2. Environmental Benefits of "Trees: The value of intangible benefits is eight times greater than the tangible value of products and services of forestry sector. Many other "intangible" benefits are derived from forest including oxygen production, watershed value, scenic benefits, ecosystem synergism and flow, and a variety of other values essential for human health and quality of life.
Forests also provide a number of crucial ecosystem services, for example, their role in sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, protecting upstream watersheds, conserving biodiversity and gene- pools for future generations and in providing landscape beauty.
3. Biodiversity Conservation: 60-90% of all terrestrial species are found in forests having widespread economic and medicinal uses still unknown to mankind.
4. Forests and Carbon Sequestration: Forests are both a source of carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are destroyed or degraded and a sink when conserved, managed or planted sustainably. Forest vegetation and soils hold 40% of carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems.
5. Forests and Water Quality: As population grows, the demand for clean drinking water becomes more acute. Besides this, need of water for agriculture, sanitation purpose, cooking needs and other uses is imperative. In Pakistan, 2 decades ago, no one had ever thought of purchasing water, but now people do purchase it, just because of depletion of forests in watersheds. Forest and plant cover are necessary to slow runoff and filter rainwater. When trees are in place, rainwater, which naturally Hows downhill to the nearest stream, is slowed. Once slowed, rainwater` seeps down to refill underground storage tanks or aquifers. In addition, water may be absorbed by the roots of trees and transpired by leaven so that it can cycle back for use again as rainwater. Forests prevent non-saline drinking quality water from running off too quickly to mix with the salt water of oceans.
Once salty, water takes much longer to reenter the fresh water portion of the hydrological cycle, where it is most useful to humans.
6. Forests and Soil Quality: The roots of trees hold soil in place. Fertile soil that is needed to grow crops would otherwise be washed away in rainstorms, decreasing the amount of soil available for agriculture. Rich soil transfers nutrients to food, which contributes to human health.
7. Biodiversity Conservation: The forests are one of the largest repositories of biodiversity in the world. By some estimates they contain 60-90% of all terrestrial species found on the planet. Some of these could have widespread economic or medicinal uses that are still unknown to us. The conservation of these valuable genetic resources for future options that are yet undiscovered is thus a valuable service that forests provide.
8. Other Benefits: In addition to the above, the forests provide multiple benefits to environment, people, and animals. The list of some of such recognized benefits is as follows: a. Forest cool air temperature by release of water vapour into the air; b. At day time trees generate oxygen and store carbon dioxide, which helps to clean air; c. Forest attracts wild life and offer food and protection to them; d. Forests offer privacy, reduce light reflection, offer a sound barrier and help guide wind direction and speed; e. Trees offer artistic functions such as creating a background, framing a view, complementing architecture, and so on; f. Well managed forests supply higher quality water with less impurity than water from other resources; g. Forests help in controlling the level floods and soil erosion; h. Forest provides different kind of wood which are used for different purposes like making of furniture, paper, and pencils and so on; i. Forest help in giving the direction of wind and its speed; j. Forest helps in keeping environment healthy and beautiful; k. Forests also minimize noise and air pollution and; l. Forest helps the scientist to invent new medicine as forest has different kinds of plants and herbs.
All benefits quoted above are purely outcome of forests and cannot be derived from agriculture. If cost of these be calculated in terms of money, it will be far above the outcome/benefits of agriculture."
In view of the great importance of forests, specially, in the preset era when the forests are going to extinct; we cannot allow anybody to launch the Housing Schemes at forest land which will encourage cutting of trees. However, as after allotments of the plots valuable rights stood accrued in favour of the allottees, hence, we are intended to direct the Government to take the steps for confining the Housing Scheme, only to the extent of plots allotted to the respondent-allottees (petitioners before the High Court), at one corner of the awarded land while leaving the remaining awarded portion heading towards Banjonsa lake as green area. The steps shall also be taken to ensure the construction of Houses in the manner to enhance the beauty of the area. It is also clarified that the aforesaid directions are to the extent of plots allotted to respondent-allottees (petitioners before the High Court) and no further allotment shall be made. It is also desired that immediate steps shall be taken for cleaning up the Banjonsa Lake and its surrounding area. Further steps shall also be taken to provide facilities to the tourists. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for compliance.
[1]This Ordinance was subsequently passed as. an Act of the Assembly known as the Housing Schemes at Rawalakot and Kotli Act, 1985 (Act XVI of 1985).
[2]This manual has subsequently been replaecd by Azad Jammu & Kashmir Law Department manual 2016. (Notification No. LD/Legis/230/2016).