' MANSOOR AHMAD, J.--- This I.C.A. Arises out of order, dated 9-5-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No,1174 of 2003.
2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out factual as well as legal background of the case.
' Respondent No,6 filed the writ petition against respondents Nos.1 to 3 seeking following relief:-- ' "In the circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents may be restrained from taking cognizance in the garb of the proceedings under rules 14' and 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 and be further restrained from interfering in the ownership and possession of the property in any manner.
' It is further prayed that pending disposal of the matter respondents be restrained from taking any detrimental action regarding property in question till the final disposal of writ petition.
' It is also respectfully prayed that the respondents be directed to maintain the status quo in all respects till the final disposal of the writ petition."
3. As is evident from the record respondent No,6 purchased 13 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land vide registered sale-deed and Mutation No,2929 was sanctioned in his favour. This piece of land was a part of total land measuring 42 Kanals, 1 Marla bearing Khasras Nos.646, 647, 481, 485, 850/482, 451/482, 852/482 situated in Revenue Estate of Nathia Tehsil and District Islamabad. He purchased this land from one Muhammad Nawaz who was a bona fide purchaser from Nawazish Ali who in turn purchased the property from Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd.
4. Aggrieved with the intervention of peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property on proceedings initiated by respondents Nos.1 to 3, respondent No,6 filed the writ petition. It was stated in the writ petition that interference caused by respondents Nos.1 to 3 was that they had initiated proceedings under Rules 14 and 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 on the application of the alleged successors of the persons whose land was acquired in the year 1952 for the company known as Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing and it was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge in Chamber vide his judgment impugned in the present appeal.
5. Appellants Nos.1 to 46 have filed the present appeal assailing judgment, dated 9-5-2003. They have impleaded Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. And Nawazish Ali Khan as respondents Nos.4 and 5.
In seeking the reversal of the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber, the learned counsel appearing for appellants urged the following contentions:--
(i) That the land was acquired from predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Earlier Writ Petitions Nos.2303 of 1998, 3680 of 2001 and 1807 of 2002 were filed by some of the appellants but they were not impleaded as parties in the writ petition in which the impugned judgment has been passed.
They also assailed the impugned judgment being violative of the principle of natural justice.
(ii) That proceedings started by respondents Nos.1 to 3 under the orders of this Court passed in three writ petitions mentioned above filed by some of the appellants but this fact was concealed and suppressed from the Court.
(iii) That respondent No,6 being a 3rd purchaser of land measuring 13 Kanals, 17 Marlas out of the total land measuring 42 Kanals, 1 Marla had no locus standi to file Writ Petition No,1174 of 2003 which was finally decided by the impugned judgment.
(iv) That Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 are applicable in Islamabad Capital Territory vide P.O.
No,18 of 1980 and Gazette Notification No,1/4/LXO/82, dated 20-1-1982 and that the impugned judgment is not based on correct appreciation of law.
(v) That the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 have the retrospective effect as the same principle was laid down in Financial Commissioner's Standing Order No,28 issued on 26-6-1909.
(vi) That there was an agreement, dated 4-9-1953 executed by respondent No,4 (Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd.) with Government of Punjab and dye (4) of the said agreement stands violated inasmuch as that land acquired was not utilized by the said company for the purposes it was acquired. On the contrary, it was sold by the company.
(vii) That respondent No,1 (Chief Commissioner, Islamabad) was legally bound to resume the land under section 41(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with rules 14 and 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983.
6. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides at length and examining the record, we propose to examine all the legal contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
Taking up the first contention, it is observed that respondent No,6 filed a writ petition when he felt aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by respondents Nos.1 to 3 under the purported exercise of jurisdiction under rules 14 and 15 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. As the writ petitioner, (respondent No,6) was aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by respondents Nos.l to 3, he filed a writ petition against the concerned functionary. As yet no vested right had accrued in favour of the appellants. It is factually a fact that few of the appellants had earlier filed three writ petitions in which they did not implead any of the subsequent vendee and merely narrated that the company has sold out the land and it being a violation attracted the provisions of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 for resumption -of land and providing the same to erstwhile owners. Those writ petitions were, disposed of at the preliminary stages without notice to the respondents by the learned Single Judge in Chamber with the, following order:-- ' "This writ petition accordingly is disposed of with direction to the Board of Revenue (respondent No,6) to expedite the proceedings in the matter of the said application of the petitioner and the decide the same in accordance with law and rules on the subject within six weeks of the receipt of this order which shall be immediately conveyed by the office to the said respondent No,6 as also to respondent No,2. Compliance shall be reported to the Deputy Registrar (J'.) of this Bench."
7. Earlier order was sent to Punjab Revenue Board' but on the review application filed by learned Assistant Advocate-General, it was sent to the Chief Commissioner; Islamabad. The order passed in those writ petitions by this Court did not vest with the appellants any right nor they acquired any right in the property. Learned counsel could not specify as to which of the appellants were the writ petitioners in filing those three writ petitions. In the writ petition filed by respondent No,6, the appellants were not the necessary party because no relief was claimed against them. As already observed none of the appellants had any right in the land nor any other right vested in them, therefore, they were not necessary parties in the writ petitions filed by respondent No,6 who was even not impleaded as a party in writ petitions earlier filed by. Some of alleged owners and it is stated on behalf of respondent No,6 that he did not have the requisite information about those writ petitions nor he had any information about the claim of the appellant who claimed to be successors of erstwhile owner in third generation. Considering all the facts of the case we are persuaded to hold that the writ petition filed by respondent No,6 did not suffer with non-joinder of the necessary parties and that the appellants were not the necessary parties. Therefore, the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem did not occasion and the plea of the appellants is not well-founded.
8. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we find that there is no evidence of any kind suggesting that the factum of filing three writ petitions earlier in point of time by some of the appellants was in the knowledge of respondent No,6. Admittedly, in those three writ petitions respondent No,6 or any of the subsequent vendee was not impleaded as one of the party, therefore, the allegation of suppression of or concealment of fact on behalf of the appellants did not find support from the material on record.
9. Dealing with the third contention of the learned counsel, we find that respondent No,6 is a purchaser of 13 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land which he purchased from one Muhammad Nawaz. The appellants admitted the purchase of 13 Kanals, 17 Marlas land by respondent No,6 but they contended that as under the agreement dated 4-9-1958, the company could not sell the land, therefore, first sale in favour of Nawazish Ali Khan and second sale in favour of Muhammad Nawaz and third sale in favour of respondent No,6 was not a lawful transaction. The perusal of the agreement, dated 4-9-1953, which was entered into between Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. (Private Company Ltd.) and Government of Punjab shows that there was no bar on the company to sell the land and the only condition was that it would be with prior permission of the Government. This is not the case of the appellants that the sale by the company was effected without prior permission of the Government. Conversely, the case is that the sale by the company was completely barred under the agreement as well under the provisions of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 and according to the appellants sale by the company in favour of vendor predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,6 was without lawful authority as such it did not confer any right on respondent No,6. Thus, he had no locus standi to file the writ petition. We afraid that the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is not well-founded. It is well-settled principle that any person having any right or semblance of right, possesses the locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for complaining against any invasion of right. In the present case respondent No,6 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of 13 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land and he rightly felt aggrieved when his land was made subject-matter of some proceedings initiated against the said land, under the provisions of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 by respondents Nos.l to 3. We, therefore, hold that respondent No,6 had the locus standi to file the writ petition.
10. Fourthly and fifthly, it was contended by the appellants that Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 are applicable in Islamabad Capital Territory. In this behalf, Gazette Notification No,1/4/LXO/82, dated 20-1-1982 was relied to show that Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1886 was made applicable in the Islamabad Capital Territory under the said notification which was issued by the Office of the Administrator, Islamabad Capital Territory.
11. Drawing force from the notification of 1982, the learned counsel for the appellants stressed that Punjab Land Acquisition Act and also the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 are applicable in Islamabad Capital Territory.
12. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants which though appear to be fanciful but are devoid of any force. Much reliance was placed on the notification, dated 19-1-1982 issued under Article 2 of the Islamabad Capital Territory (Administration) Order, 1980 (P.O. No,18 of 1980). Through the said notification which was issued by the Administrator, Islamabad Capital Territory it was ordered that the Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad shall exercise all powers as Commissioner Land Revenue, Islamabad within the Revenue limits of Islamabad under the following laws:--
(1) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
(2) Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1886.
(3) Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
(4) Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 and 1977.
(5) The Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958.
' Plain reading of the notification clearly shows that it was issued by the Administrator to confer powers on the D.C., Islamabad to exercise all powers as Commissioner Land Revenue. It is not the notification whereby Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1886 in its entirety was made applicable in Islamabad Capital Territory. It would be relevant to point out that compulsory acquisition of land within the Islamabad Capital Territory is effected under the special law which is Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 and its Chapter IV starting from section 22 to 36B deals with it. The Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 provides a complete and comprehensive procedure for acquisition of land. The Land Acquisition Regulation, 1961 was framed by C.D.A. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 51 of Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. Thus, it is clear that within Islamabad Capital Territory, Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1886 is not applicable. Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 were framed by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers conferred upon him by subsection (1) of section 55 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These Rules were framed by Provincial Government and were enforced on 22-2-19983, therefore, these Rules are only applicable within Province of the Punjab, Islamabad. Capital Territory is a distinct area from Province of the Punjab. On dissolution of West Pakistan by Presidential Order No,1 of 1970, Islamabad Capital Territory was given separate identity. Vide P.O.
No,12 of 1970, the Administration of Islamabad Capital Territory for the time being was allowed to be with Government of Punjab, but in 1980 through P.O. No,17 of the 1980, the P.O. 12 of 1970 was repealed. Simultaneously, P.O. 18 of 1980 was issued and enforced, whereby the Administrator for Islamabad Capital Territory was appointed and through a notification issued under Article 2 of P.O.
18, the Administrator, Islamabad was conferred the powers of Provincial Government. In Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Islamabad Capital Territory is given distinct Constitutional status. Any Provincial Laws of Province of the Punjab, which were not laws existing in 1970 did not apply in the territorial limits of Islamabad Capital Territory. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not a law applicable for purposes of acquisition within Islamabad Capital Territory and Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 framed much subsequently, under Punjab Land Acquisition Act were not applicable, firstly because main Act was not applicable in Islamabad, secondly, these Rules were framed by Provincial Government of the Punjab Province and thirdly, these were not the existing laws in year 1970. The provision relating to resumption of acquired land from the company in the event of its non-utilization is contained only in rule 15 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. There is no such provision in the main statute. The question whether rule 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 is ultra vires is not germane to the main controversy and we leave this to be examined in some other appropriate case. Suffice it to hold that rule 15 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 is only applicable and enforceable in the Province of Punjab and within the Islamabad Capital Territory it has no applicability. In the absence of this Rule, the case of the petitioner lastly rested on the agreement, dated 4-9-1953 which was entered into between the company and the Government of Punjab. In the said agreement we do not find any penal clause providing that in case partially or otherwise land is not utilized for the purposes, acquired by the company it would be resumed in the case of violation of any of the clause of the agreement.
13. The learned counsel relied on General Standing Order No,28 issued under the Land Acquisition Act of 1909. Relying on para. 100 of the Standing Order, the learned counsel argued that even if the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 are held to be inapplicable in the territorial limits of Islamabad yet under rule 100 of the Standing Order, the appellants as successors-in-interest of the original owners would be entitled to the restoration of land as the company had not utilized the land for the purposes it was acquired and the Government was bound to resume it and return it back to its previous owners. Rule 100 of Standing Order No,28 is again not bringing any desired relief to the appellants. In the first instance, it is clear that the rule is only applicable when agricultural or pastoral land is acquired by any department of the Government and if such agricultural or pastoral land is not required for such purposes, the disposal of it shall be guided by the general considerations mentioned in paragraphs 493 to 495 of the Land Administration Manual. Paragraph 493 provides that where land in the permanent occupation of any department of the Punjab Province is no longer required it shall be handed over to the Deputy Commissioner of the District who would be responsible for its disposal under the orders of Commissioner. It may not, however, be permanently alienated without the previous sanction of the Government. There is no legal bar to its being put up for auction. But as a matter of grace, Government is usually willing to restore agricultural and pastoral land to the persons from whom it acquired or to their heirs on their refunding the amount paid as compensation less than 15% granted for compulsory acquisition. As already observed that Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not applicable within the Islamabad Capital Territory. Therefore, reliance placed on Standing Order No,28 by the learned counsel for the appellants is not a point well-taken. The reasons are that Standing Order No,28 is not applicable in Islamabad Capital Territory. Secondly, the land acquired was neither agricultural nor pastoral. Land was acquired by the company to establish industry known as Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. Lastly, rule 100 of Standing Order No,28 did not confer any right upon the previous owners to seek restoration of land for which they had already received compensation.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants with great vehemence argued that Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 enforced on 22-2-1983 were applicable to all acquired land which was acquired for public purposes either for a Government or a department or for a company. Supporting his view point the learned counsel relied on the following cases:-- ' Adnan Afazal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187, The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others PLD 1972 SC 279, Mahmood Shah and others v. Additional Settlenient Commissioner, Revenue and others PLD 1979 Lah. 709, Governor, N.-W.F.P. And another v. Gul Naras Khan 1987 SCM R 1709 and Commissioner, Sindh Employees' Social Securities Institution and another v. Messrs E.M. Oil Mills and Industries Ltd. And others 2002 SCM R 39.
15. As we have already held that Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 are not applicable within the area of Islamabad Capital Territory, therefore, the question of retrospectivity becomes irrelevant and the case-law referred to by the learned counsel is not of any help to him.
16. Dealing with next contention of the learned counsel, we have examined the agreement, dated 4-9-1953 which was executed by the Government of Punjab and the company known as Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. The agreement comprised of preamble and six conditions. None of the stipulations provides that in case the land is not utilized by the company for the purposes it was acquired, it would be resumed back for the benefit of the previous owners. Learned counsel finding no such penal clause places reliance on clause (4) of the agreement. In clause (4) it was provided that the company shalt not let or hire, lease, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of the land mentioned above or any part thereof except with the previous permission of the Government. The said clause does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the resumption proceedings should necessarily be taken by the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad to resume the land or a portion thereof on the behest or desire of the successors-in-interest of erstwhile owners. Finding no support from the agreement dated 4-9-1953 in favour of the pleas of the appellants, we repell the same as unfounded and without force.
17. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad is legally obliged to initiate proceedings for resumption of land and that the proceedings which were initiated in pursuance of the order of the Court were valid according to law and those proceedings must culminate in a decision in terms of the principle contained in rule 15 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. We have considered this plea of the appellants and find that this is a superstructure without foundation. In the absence of applicability of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983 in the Islamabad Capital Territory, the premises for initiating the proceedings under the said rule by the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad is not legally available as it was rightly held by the learned Single Judge in Chamber.
18. The upshot of the above discussion is that the I.C.A. Fails, hence the same is hereby dismissed and we uphold the judgment, dated 9-5-2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No,1174 of 2003.