1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The High Court accepted a writ petition filed by respondents Gul Zaman, Khani Zaman and Sher Zaman and declared as illegal an award in respect of the land in dispute which was sought to be compulsorily acquired for public purpose. The present appeal, with leave of the Court, has been instituted by Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Military Estates Officer, Hazara Circle, Abbottabad. The Collector, whose order was quashed by the High Court, has not appealed.
2. ' It has been contended by Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Mughal, the learned counsel for respondents Gul Zaman and 2 others mentioned above, that the appeal has not been validly instituted and entails dismissal on this ground alone. It has been pointed out that when petition for leave to appeal was filed on 1st of September 1992 no Vakalatnama on behalf of the Government , of Pakistan was attached with the petition and only a Vakalatnama signed by Military Estates Officer, Hazara Circle, Abbottabad was included in the file. A Vakalatnama signed by the Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Defence was filed in the office on 20th of September, 1992. It was thus contended by the learned counsel that the petition for leave to appeal, which was subsequently converted into appeal, could not be deemed to be validly instituted on behalf of the Government of Pakistan.
3. He further submitted that an additional factor which destorys whatever value the subsequently filed Vakalatnama carried is that limitation had already expired when Vakalatnama was placed on record. In respect of the other appellant, namely, Military Estates Officer, Hazara Circle, Abbottabad, the learned counsel contended that he had no right under law to challenge the order passed by the High Court.
4. ' Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, - Advocate controverted the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents. He vehemently submitted that Vakalatnama filed subsequently in the Court validated the institution of the petition for leave to appeal on behalf of the Government of Pakistan. He submitted that Vakalatnama filed in the Court sufficiently proves that the Government of Pakistan wanted to file an appeal from the order of the High Court and thus the appeal was not unauthorised. The learned counsel also submitted that Military Estate Officer was one of the respondents in the High Court and, therefore, could file an appeal against the order passed by that Court. He also submitted that the said appellant was vitally interested in the result of the proceeding& He relied on Pakistan v. Messrs Q.M.R. Expert Consultants PLD 1990 SC 800 and Muhammad, Munshi v. Mst. Rakiya Bi 1990 CLC' 301.
5. ' Rule 2, Order XIII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 requires that the petition for leave to appeal shall be signed by the counsel or by the party if he appears in person.
6. Petition for leave to appeal filed in this. Court was signed by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi purportedly as a counsel for Government of Pakistan. The question is whether he was a validly appointed counsel or not It is provided in Rule 19 of Order IV of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules that every 'Advocate on record shall before acting on behalf of any person or party file in the Registry a power of attorney in the prescribed form authorising him to act. When petition for leave to appeal was filed it was pointd out that there was no Vakalatnama on behalf of the Government of Pakistan but no Vakalatnama was filed even on 12th of September, 1992 when the case next came up before the Registrar and Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi obtained an adjournment for that prupose. A Vakalatnama signed by the Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Defence was filed in the Court on 20th of September 1992. This Vakalatnama does not bear any date. Another Vakalatanama was filed in the office on 2nd of December 1992 when leave had already been granted. The reasons and circumstances in which this Vakalatnama was brought on the record has not been explained, to us. Leave in the case was granted on 28th September 1992 and there was no date of hearing either before the Registrar or before this Court when second Vakalatnama was filed. It appears that it was presented to the Registrar who ordered that it should be filed. This Vakalatnama bears the signature of the Secretary. Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Defence but conspicuously the date on which the said officer signed the Vakalatnama is also missing. Another document was filed on the same day. It is a letter from the Section Officer Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and is addressed to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi requesting him`to conduct the case on behalf of the Federal Government.
7. ' There is nothing on the record to show that two Vakalatnamas subsequently brought on the record were in existence when the petition for leave to appeal was filed. As already noted the dates on which the Vakalatnamas were signed by the concerned officers are missing. This fact leaves no scope for the argument that filing of the petition for leave to appeal was duly authorised by the Government of Pakistan. The court-fee stamps affixed on the Vakalatnamas are of 16th of September and 1st of December, 1992. These dates do not advance the case of the appellant. It is not the appellants' case that Vakalatnamas had been signed before institution of the petition for leave to appeal but inadvertently could not be filed in the Court. Therefore we need not go into the question whether in such an eventuality a petition for leave to appeal can be legally deemed to be duly instituted. The law on this point has been laid down in Azad J&K Government v. Habibullah Lone PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 13 in the following words:--- "13. Besides, Rule 19 of Order IV of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, regulates the procedure in this behalf which lays down the conditions that are necessary for investing an Advocate with the authority to act on behalf of a person. The relevant provision is: `Every Advocate on record shall before acting on behalf of any person or party file in the Registry a power of attorney in the prescribed form authorising him to act.'
8. ' This provision would clearly show that before an Advocate can act for a party he must firstly have an authority by him to do so and secondly the authority must be in writing by the party. Unless these two conditions are complied with an action taken by an Advocate on behalf of a person would not be deemed to be a valid performance of his function. In the absence of a duly executed power of attorney it would be said that such an Advocate had no authority to act on behalf of that person. A pleader who files a petition for leave to appeal cannot do so except when he is authorised in writing by such a person. Therefore, filing of a petition on behalf of Government by Sardar Rafique Mahmood who had not been duly appointed by the Government in writing, as required under rules, is not only an irregularity which may be cured at a subsequent stage but it is also completely devoid of validity."
9. ' Pakistan v. Messrs O.M.R. Expert Consultants PLD 1990 SC 800 cited by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi does not deal with the question of which we are seized in the present appeal. So far as the judgment of AJ&K High Court in Muhammad Munshi's case is concerned it runs counter to this Court's dictum in Habibullah Lone's judgment and does not lay down correct law that appointment of a counsel can be subsequently ratified.
10. It is, therefore, clear that the Advocate who filed the petition for leave to appeal on behalf of the Government of Pakistan was not duly appointed counsel for that party and consequently there is no valid appeal in this Court so far as the Government of Pakistan is concerned. In view of this conclusion we need not go into the question whether that Government had the locus standi to file an appeal in this Court.
11. We now turn to the case of Military Estates Officer. Appeal to this Court can be preferred by a person who is aggrieved of the order or decree passed by the High Court. The High Court has in its order quashed the order passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition and no order has been passed against the Military Estates Officer. It is true that Military Estates Officer was arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition along with Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Revenue Commissioner, D.Q. Station Headquarter Muzaffarabad apart from the Collector, Land Acquisition, but it was not explained in the writ petition as to why Military Estates Officer was being impleaded as a respondent. Likewise it has not been explained in the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court as to why the Estates Officer was filing an appeal from the order of the High Court. We do not find that the Military Estates Officer has any locus standi to file the appeal. No order has been passed against him. No order or proceeding taken by him has been quashed by the High Court. If the order passed by the Collector Land Acquisition is revived by this Court the Military Estates Officer does not stand to gain anything. It was contended by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Ka/mi that the Military Estates Officer was a representative of the Government of Pakistan There is nothing on the record to substantiate this plea but even if it is so, a representative has no separate entity. Therefore, the appeal filed by the ' Military Estates Officer is not competent.
12. ' We have ,found that there is no valid appeal on behalf of the Government of Pakistan and also that Military Estates Officer has no locus standi to file an appeal. Therefore, we need not go into the merits of the case which have been elaborately argued before us.
13. ' The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. No order as to the costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.