' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---A writ petition filed by Muhammad Nazir Khan and 3 other persons against Azad Government, Chairman, Pearl Development Authority, Rawalakot, Collector, Land Acquisition, Poonch, Revenue Commissioner, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Revenue Secretary of the Government on 30th of July, 1997 has been dismissed by the High Court vide its order, dated 23rd of April, 1999. One of the writ petitioners Muhammad Nazir Khan, has filed this appeal with leave of the Court.
2. The averments made in the writ petition were that land measuring 12 Kanals, 10 Marlas under Survey No,2 and land measuring 3 Kanals, 11 Marlas under Survey No,3, 16 Kanals one Marla in all, situated in Tarar, Tehsil Rawalakot, belonged to the writ petitioners. This land was acquired for Rawalakot Housing Scheme for which notifications were issued on 5th and 6th of December, 1978 uner Land Acquisition Act. Award was finalised on 27th May, 1981. Work on the housing scheme was taken in hand by Public Works Department through its Buildings Division at Rawalakot. The writ petitioners were out of the country, therefore, they were given compensation at the rate of rupees twenty thousand per Kanal plus 15 per cent. In lieu of compulsory acquisition as, due to their absence, they could not take steps for getting the amount enhanced. The Buildings Division promised at the time of taking over possession that the landowners whose land had been acquired would be allotted plots on pieferential basis. On this understanding the writ petitioners handed over possession of the awarded land belonging to them except a peice of plot measuring three Kanals. However, the Public . Works Department, on one pretext or the other, did not receive the price of the promised plots nor did they allot any plot to them. Subsequently all powers relating to the Housing Scheme were transferred to the Pearl Development Authority when it was set up by the Government. The writ petitioners contacted Chairman 1 of the Authority for obtaining allotment of plots whereupon the . Chairman directed them to deposit rupees twenty thousand for allotment of each plot as advance payment. Writ petitioner Muhammad Nazir deposited the requisite amount (receipt was attached). Rest of the petitioners were given extension in time for making advance payment but subsequently the Chairman, again on one pretext or the other, did not receive the advance payment from Writ Petitioners 2 to 4. Writ petitioner Muhammad Nazir Khan has not been given allotment chit.
3. It was further averred in the writ petition that land belonging to the petitioners as well as to the other persons in Rawalakot was acquired for the public purpose of setting up of a Housing Scheme at low rates of compensation. Thee land could only be utilised for the purpose for which it has been acquired but, instead of utilising the land belonging to the writ petitioners for the purposes of the Housing Scheme, and providing residential plots to the needy persons, the Chairman of the Pearl Development Authority had started building commercial plazas and was using the land for commercial purposes thus frustrating the purpose for which the land had been acquired.
Chairman, Pearl Development Authority has no right under law to put to any other use the property acquired for a specific purpose. Construction of a plaza for commercial purposes could not in any circumstances be called a public purpose. Thus land measuring 3 Kanals is still in possession of the writ petitioners who were ready to return the amount of compensation received by them. The writ petitioners prayed that suitable writs may be issued so as to declare that for the reasons stated above the acquisition of the belonging to the writ petitioners. Stood vitiated. Alternatively the respondents may be directed to pay compensation amount to the writ petitioners on commercial rates. It was also prayed that the Chairman may be directed to allot plots to the writ petitioners.
4. The writ petition has been dismissed as stated above. It was held that even if it was assumed that any assurance was given to the affectees that they would be allotted plots the rights could have been enforced within reasonable time but the writ petition has been filed sixteen years after the award. It was further held by the High Court that the construction of plazas by the Pearl Development Authority was connected with the housing scheme because if the Authority, instead of allotting plots, allots quarters or residential rooms in the plaza, that does not change the purpose of acquisition.
5. During arguments in this Court we noticed that all the reliefs claimed in the writ petition were addressed to the Pearl Development Authority but the said Authority was not impleaded as a party.
The Chairman of the Authority is duly arrayed as respondent No,2 but Chairman and the Authority are not the same for the purposes of a writ petition. In the case reported as Muhammad Resham Khan v. Chairman Inspection Team and Three others (PLJ 1990 SC (AJ&K) 38) this Court took suo motu notice of the fact that writ petition had been filed to challenge an order passed by the Inspection Team set up under a law known as the "the Irregular and Unauthorised Allotment (Cancellation) Ordinance, 1978" but the Inspection Team had not been arrayed as a respondent.
This Court held that Inspection Team was itself a regal authority which was a necessary party. It was further held that Chairman and Inspection Team were not interchangeable. Therefore, it was held that the writ petition entailed dismissal on this ground alone. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-- "Apart from that I have noticed that the Inspection Team was not impleaded as a party. The parties in the writ petition were (i) the Chairman of the Inspection Team, (ii) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government, (iii) Mst. Fatima Bi, (who claims to be in possession of the disputed land) and (iv) The Secretary of the Inspection Team, while the order has been passed by the Inspection Team. It is elementary requirement that in a writ petition the Government or the peson performing functions in connection with the affairs of the State whose order is challenged should be made a party. The word 'person' is defined in section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The definition is reproduced below:---
44. (1) xx xx xx xx
(2) xx xx xx xx
(3) xx xx xx xx xx xx
(5) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires, 'person' includes anybody politic or corporate, any authority of or under control of the Council or the Government and any Court or Tribunal other than the (Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir), the High Court or a Court or Tribunal established under a law relating to, the Defence Services.
' It is clear that the Inspection Team is a 'person' within the meaning of the above definition and is not interchangeable with the Chairman or the Secretary of the Team. Since Inspection Team as such was not made a party in the High Court writ petition entitled dismissal on this ground alone."
6. In Qazi Liaquat Ali Qureshi v. Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq and 3 others (1998 PLC (C.S.) 15) it was held that since Selection Committee, which conducted the test and interview, was not arrayed as a respondent no effective writ could be issued, therefore, writ was liable to be dismissed on this short ground. The appeal filed in this Court was accepted and the writ petition was ordered to be dismissed. It was held that an effective writ could not be issued due to nonimpleadment of a necessary party and thus the Court could take suo motu notice of this situation. The same view was taken by this Court in Abdul Hamid v. Muhammad Zamir (1980 PSC 1014) and Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property (1992 SCR 214). There are many other judgments laying down the same rule but there is no point in multiplying the case-law.
7. In this view of the matter it was pointid out to Mr. Muhammad Sayab Khalid, the learned counsel for the appellant, as to how relief could be given to his client even if it is found that the judgment of the High Court is not correct. The learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the rule mentioned above can be departed from in the present case. Therefore, supposing we accept the appeal and, decide to declare that land acquired from the appellant cannot be utilised for construction of a plaza we would still not be able to give any relief because Chairman of the Pearl Development Authority, who is a respondent, is not constructing the plazas but it is the Authority which is doing so, but the Authority is not impleaded as a respondent for which reason no writ can be issued to it. There is no point in adverting to the merits of the case in view of the fact that no effective writ can be issued in ne present case.
' Since the petition filed in the High Court suffered 'pm fatal defect it shall stand dismissed fore reasons stated in this judgment. Conti uently this appeal is also dismissed.