1996 PLP 1573 (MLD)

RAJA ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI, J.‑‑‑A common question of law and facts is involved in the I.C.As. Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31 of 1994. For this reason all the four I,C.As. shall be disposed of by this single judgment.

2. In this case all the petitioners are former residents of Chak Shahzad, District Islamabad. The Capital Development Authority happened to acquire the built‑up land/property to establish there Pakistan Agricultural Research Council. After duly completion of the formalities the award was announced on 3‑5‑1976 by‑ the Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. Those who were entitled to compensation, they were duly compensated in accordance with law. Out of those there were certain minors who were owners of the property in their own names. They claimed allotment of the residential plots in their names but the respondent refused to do so.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has based his arguments for the allotment of plots and has stated that number‑ of residential plots have been allotted by the C.D.A. to the minors of Village Koka Dina Syedan, Sheikhpur, as such, the present appellants are also entitled to similar treatment. But these contentions were not accepted by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21‑11‑1994.

4. The appellants have preferred the present I.C.As, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on number of grounds. As far as the merits of the cases are concerned, the I.C.As. were not admitted, however, notices to the respondent were sent vide order dated 22‑12‑1994.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objections on 6‑2‑1995 and has challenged the maintainability of these I.C.As. under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Learned counsel for the respondent while making submissions took‑ a plea that the appellants had the‑ impugned order dated 22‑10‑1991 of the C.D.A./respondent whereby the allotment of plots was refused to them. Against this order, the appellants filed writ petitions in the Hon'ble High Court and the same were disposed of with the observation that their applications before the C.D.A. authority shall be deemed to be pending for adjudication vide order dated 13‑11‑1993. After remand of the case the C.D.A. gave full hearing to the appellants and passed an order on 26‑2‑1994 concluding that, the present appellants had no case at all. Against this order the writ petitions were filed, later on which 'were dismissed. The present I. C. As are to challenge the said dismissal order. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the first refusal order of the allotment of plots was passed on 22‑10‑1991 which was again confirmed by order dated 26‑2‑1994.

6. On the basis of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, preliminary objection has been raised about the institution of these I.C.As. Section 3 has been amended. Now section 3 (2) reads as under:‑ Section 3 (2) An appeal shall also lie to the Bench of two Judges of the High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court under clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan not being an order made under sub‑paragraph (1) of paragraph (b) of that clause: Provided that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises ‑ out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order. " 7 A bare reading of this section shows that the words "original order" have crucial significance. It is clear from that proviso that requirement of availability of an appeal under the law applicable is not related with the impugned order in the Constitutional petition, which may be the order passed by the lowest office or authority or some order passed by the higher authority in appeal, review and revision etc. It is not requirement of law that whether the order is relevant or not. Learned counsel relies upon PLD 1984 SC

344. The relevant portion is as under:‑‑ "A plain reading of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 means that no appeal will be available or competent before a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court in a Constitutional petition, if such petition arises out of 'any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal against the original order. The reference is clearly to the proceedings taken under any statute which prescribes an hierarchy of officers or authorities for the carrying into effect the purposes of such statute including the enforcement of rights, if any, created there under. We have gone through this judgment it is a big guideline in the matter.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently insisted about the maintainability of these I.C.As. on the grounds that no specific right of appeal, review and revision etc. has been provided in the law/regulation applicable in the C.D.A. matters; that the undertaking, given by the C.D.A. for the allotment of residential plots is between the individual and the authority which being sought to be enforced. The policy prepared and adopted by the C.D.A. in the matter of allotment has individual effect and in that policy matter there is no provision for appeal, revision and review etc., thus the I.C.As. are maintainable; and that in the matter of allotment of the residential plots, there are two individual policies, one for/ those who were the residents and owners of the land in question and second who were otherwise.

9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 is applicable in the affairs. The land, building etc. were acquired under the C.D.A. Ordinance, Rules, Regulations and policy matters were also framed and adopted, prepared and deleted under the powers vested to the authority concerned under the C.D.A. Ordinance. There is a section` 51 of the C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960, which gives powers to the authority to make regulation, not inconsistent with the rules, if any, on all matters for which regulations are necessary or expedient; and such regulation shall be published in the official Gazette. Islamabad Land. Disposal Regulation, 1993, was published in the Gazette of Pakistan. This Regulation bears ‑No.CDA‑30(2)(Noti)‑Coord/93, which deals with the residential plots. The present matter also falls within the ambit of this regulation, wherein according to the Regulation No.21 any person, aggrieved by an order may, within three months of such order appeal to the Board whose decision shall be final. The previous regulation on the same subject is of 20‑9-1989. This, too, was pertaining to the Land Disposal in Islamabad Regulation, 1988. There is a separate Chapter XII, for appeals, which shows that any person aggrieved by an order may, within three months of such order, appeal to the Authority. The appeals shall be considered by the Board of the Authority whose decision shall be final. The Regulation 1985 was also referred section 51 of this regulation, which provides a right of appeal of civil nature. Copies of these Regulations were produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the C.D.A. Even after going through these relevant regulations and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan referred by the learned counsel for the C.D.A. the appellants cannot seek remedy through these I.C.As. Learned counsel for the appellants in fact failed to prove his case. He has not quoted any law in support of his contention. In fact learned counsel for the appellant adopted wavering attitude while making his submissions.

10. Without making any comments about the merits of the cases, this Bench is of the view that these I.C.As. are not maintainable, therefore, all the four I.C.As. are dismissed. H.B.T./F‑10/L Appeals dismissed