SARDAR LIAQAT HUSSAIN, J. The captioned writ petition has been filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, whereby, the petitioner has implored the following relief:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully submitted that a writ of mandamus/directing respondents that while implementing the orders of the Prime Minister dated 30.10.2013 and 20.08.2014, the land comprising survey No.399 measuring 2 kanals 10 marlas, No.399/1 measuring 01 kanal 18 marlas, No.402 measuring 02 kanals 16 marlas, No.402/1 measuring 15 marlas may kindly be excluded from the award No.01/2012, 02/2012 and 01/2013, the Government may kindly be directed to issue formal notification under Section 48 excluding the aforesaid land from the Awards. The respondents may also be restrained from taking over the possession of the land from the petitioner. Any other relief admissible under law may also be granted."
2. Precise facts, leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the PWD Department, through Collector Land Acquisition. got awarded land for con traction of residential accommodation of the Government officials, at Neelum through separate awards bearing No.01/2012, 02/2012 and 01/2013.
It has been stated that the land comprising survey No.399 measuring kanals 10 marlas, No.399/1 measuring 01 kanal 18 marlas, No,402 measuring 02 kanals 16 marlas, No.402/1 measuring 15 marlas, is in the ownership and possession of the petitioner, which was 'dedicated for shrine and religious purpose. It has been alleged that prior to issuance of award, the petitioner was not served any notice, under the Land Acquisition Act. Feeling aggrieved from the award, the petitioner filed an application before the Worthy Prime Minister, whereupon, (the then) Prime Minister, accorded approval and directed the concerned department to issue notification for de-award. It has been alleged that the approval of the Prime Minister has not been implemented by the respondents, so far. A direction has been sought to the respondents for implementation of the approval granted by the Prime Minister and de-award of the land, owned by the petitioner and reserved for shrine.
3. The I petition has been contested by the respondents by filing written statement, wherein, the stance of the petitioner has been negated in toto and it has been stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition. The petitioner is not the owner of the disputed land, rather he is possessor of the same in pursuance of a fake and fabricated mutation. With regard to dedication of the land in dispute, to shrine of Kayan Sharif, the respondents have stated that the Shrine, i.e Kayan Sharif is situated at a distance of 14.5 km from the land in question and the petitioner has rented the house for a private school. The respondents have stated that total 122 kanals land has been acquired for construction of residential accommodation for Government employees of District Neelum, through the impugned awards, by following due procedure of law.
With respect to the location of the land in question, the respondents have stated that the land situates in the center of the acquired land, and in case of de-award, the whole project will be destroyed as the approach road has been proposed through the land, sought to be de-awarded. It has also been stated that the compensation of the house etc. has also been fixed and the petitioner can receive the same. No proceedings can be initiated on an illegal order, obtained by the Chief Executive, without due process of law, and in this regard detailed report has been submitted, the respondents have stated with regard to the approval of the Prime Minister and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the parties were directed to file written arguments and the needful has been done, accordingly.
5. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate. the learned counsel for the petitioners, in his written arguments has repeated the contents of the petition and has contended that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, herein, filed an application before the Prime Minister, who accorded approval of de-award of the disputed land but the respondents have not implemented the said order. The learned counsel has stated that in pursuance of the Order of Prime Minister, required proceedings have not been completed by the respondents so far, therefore, by accepting the instant writ petition, the respondents be directed to implement the order of Prime Minister and issue notification for de-award of the disputed land. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case law:-
1. 2021 SCR 665, 2. 2012 YLR 1580 and 2019 SCR 703
6. On the contrary, Mr. Abdul Malik Siddiqi, the learned Legal Advisor for PWD department has refuted the stance of the petitioners and has stated that the order of the Prime Minister has not been passed on a duly processed file and is against the interest of the Project and the Public at large as well. He has stated the under the Land Acquisition Act, the Government is empowered to acquire any land subject to payment of reasonable compensation amount and the same has been fixed by the Collector Land Acquisition, therefore, the petitioner was no entitled to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, for de-award of the land. The learned counsel, while placing reliance on the following case law, has craved for dismissal of the writ petition:-
1. 2001 YLR 3367, 2. 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1195 and 3. 2014 SCR 298
7. Arguments heard for and against. Record perused carefully.
8. First of all, I would like to attend the, claim of the petitioner that the respondents be directed to carry on the approval of the Prime Minister. In this regard, this Court would like to observe that only those approvals/directives of the Chief Executive can be implemented which are in lane with the law, rendered on a duly processed file. This view of the Court is fortified by the case law, reported as [2014 SCR 298], wherein, at page 315 of the report, it has been observed as under:- "11. So far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that the direction of the Prime Minister should be carried out is concerned, the Prime Minister (Chief Executive) is not made a party in the written statement and counsel for the official respondents before the Courts also taken the same stand as has been discussed hereinabove. Even otherwise, according to law, the direction of the Prime Minister an only be carried out which are consistent with law and any direction contrary to law having no statutory backing cannot be carried out. In this regard, reference can be made to a case reported as Major Muhammad Aftab Ahmed (Retired) v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, [1992 SCR 307], wherein, this Court while attending the identical Prime Minister's direction for appointment against a civil post has observed as under:- "This application has been marked not to the Chief Secretary but to the concerned Secretary.
As is clear from the reading of the orders of the Prime Minister reproduced above, verbatim,, none of them can be to be an order by the Prime Minister appointing the appellant as Superintendent of Police. At the most the last two orders of the Prime Minister amount to directing the Chief Secretary and the Secretary concerned respectively to take proceedings on the application of the appellant for his appointment to the post of Superintendent of Police in accordance with the rules against the quota reserved for retired Army Officers and as such on their basis no writ in the nature of certiorari could be issued directing the Government or its Chief Secretary to issue the appointment letter of the appellant for the post of Superintendent of Police because by virtue of them the appellant does not stand appointed by the Prime. Minister to the said post."
10(sic). Earlier, the controversy was resolved by the Hon'ble apex Court in case reported as 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1195, while observing as under at page 1198 of the report:- "5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed on the point that the directive issued by the Prime Minister is to be implemented because it is issued by a competent authority. So far as the directive of the Prime Minister is concerned, any such-directive can only be implemented by the Courts of law if it is issued according to spirit of law and under the powers vested by law. The directive of Prime Minister, which are inconsistent with law, cannot implemented by Courts of law."
11. In light of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the question regarding implementation of the directive of the Prime Minister stands answered in negative and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole point.
12. Even otherwise, under the law, it is the prerogative of the acquiring agency to acquire any land subject to reasonable compensation or de-award the same, if the same is not required for the proposed project or has become surplus.
13. The project of construction of residential accommodation is a huge project for the betterment of the Government officials and as per record, the disputed land is situated at a place, where the approach has been proposed and due to de-award of the said land, the scheme/plan of the whole project will be destroyed, therefore, this Court is not inclined to cause destruction of such a huge project rather would like to direct the respondents to carry out the plan and complete the same within the stipulated period.
14. The net consequence of the above detailed discussion is that finding no force in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Status quo order, if any, stands vacated with immediate effect.
Writ petition dismissed.