2008 PLP 1648 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY, C.J.

This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated November, 21, 2005, whereby the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The succinct facts forming the background of the instant appeal are that through Government Notification dated December 6, 1997, land measuring 100 Kanals was reserved and notified for the construction of Government Girls College Dadyal. Appellant No.1 with his best efforts obtained the land for construction of College building. He constructed a huge building after spending crores of Rupees. On December 16,2000 another notification was issued by the Government, whereby the Government Degree College for Girls was shifted to the newly-constructed building on the conditions mentioned in the notification. The Government did not spend a single penny on the construction of building. The daughter or one of the appellants is also student of this College. Later on, on January 6, 2005, a notification was issued with mala fide intention, whereby 50 Kanals for land was cancelled from the College's land. This notification was challenged by the appellants in the High Court through a writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition vide judgment under appeal. Now the aforesaid judgment of the High Court has been challenged through the instant appeal with leave of this Court.

3. Ch. Ali Muhammad appellant No.1, argued the case and submitted that due to his efforts the land measuring 100 Kanals was notified for the construction of the Girls College building. He spent crores of Rupees with the help of public and constructed a huge building on the said land. The Government did not spend a single penny on the construction of building. After completion of the building the College was shifted to the building on December 16, 2000. After five years of shifting the College, on January 6, 2005 a notification was issued whereby 50 Kanals of land was deleted from the earlier notification. He submitted that the appellants obtained the land for the College, constructed the building by spending crores of Rupees and after five years of shifting the College, the land measuring 50 Kanals was deleted from the basic notification. No opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellants and they were condemned unheard. It was further contended by the appellant that he took the initiative for the construction of College building, worked day and night and completed the building for the welfare of the people of the area, but it is most unfortunate that land measuring 50 Kanals was deleted from the notification, due to which the appellants have been adversely affected. He further submitted that the learned Judge of the High Court has wrongly held that the appellants are not aggrieved persons. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court may be set aside.

4. While controverting the arguments of the appellants, Sardar Muhammad Razik Khan, Additional Advocate-General, argued that 50 Kanals of land was sufficient for the College and the Government has rightly reduced the land of College. Therefore, this appeal has no merits and the judgment of the High Court is based on sound, cogent and sagacious reasonings. Hence, it needs no indulgence by this Court.

5. We have heard the appellant No.1 as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General and have given our utmost thought to the arguments advanced by them. The contemplated perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that the learned Judge held as under:-- "It is admitted between the parties that vide notification dated December 6,1997 100 Kanals land was reserved for construction of Girls Degree College Dudyal. Subsequently, the College was shifted to the newly-constructed building vide notification dated December 16, 2000. A perusal of this notification reveals that the building was constructed by the local public and the same was handed over to the Government through the said notification. Subsequently, on the recommendation of some committee constituted for the purpose, the Government amended the notification dated 6-12-1997 whereby 100 Kanals land was allocated to the College vide notification dated January 6,2005. The Government maintained the allocation to the extent of 50 Kanals only whereas the rest of the fifty Kanals land was restored to the industrial estate. It was further stated in the notification that the Education Department shall pay compensation of Rs.6,55,000 to the Industry Department. In my estimation, after construction of the building, the same was handed over to the Government vide notification dated December 16,2000 and thereafter the earlier notification dated December 6, 1997 was amended. This was an internal arrangement between the Government and the concerned department. After handing over the College to the Government, the petitioners are not aggrieved." (underlining is ours) (sic).

6. The learned Judge of the High Court has held that the appellants are not aggrieved persons because the College was handed over to the Government. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge because as the `aggrieved person' is concerned, it has been defined by this Court in various cases that aggrieved person does not mean that he should have a strict juristic right. It is sufficient if he successfully establishes that he has an existing right to assail the order which is illegal and adversely affects his rights whatever they may be or he should establish that he has some interest in the cause. As such was held by this Court in a case titled Ajaib Hussain and another v. Muhammad Fazal and 5 others 1980 CLC 198, wherein at page 201 it has been held:

"We may now advert, to examine the validity of the arguments that the respondents were not aggrieved party competent to file the writ petition. The argument to us is without foundation. The learned counsel seems to be labouring under a misconception that only a person whose vested rights have been directly invaded by an action can be termed as an aggrieved person. But in our view it is not necessary that a person invoking writ jurisdiction should have a juristic right. It is sufficient if he successfully establishes that he has an existing right to assail an order which is illegal and adversely affects his rights whatever they may be. In this view of the matter if an act is without lawful authority, and a person is adversely affected by such an act, he can seek declaration that such act is without lawful authority adversely affecting his interest. So to say that a person can only be termed as an aggrieved person if his vested interests are flouted is an incorrect import and meaning of the word `aggrieved' in context of writ jurisdiction." As such was also held in a case titled Muhammad Islam v. Abdul Rashid and others 1993 SCR 38, wherein at page 39 it was observed as under:

"It maybe stated that for maintaining the writ jurisdiction it is not necessary that the petitioner seeking remedy by way of a writ must possess a juristic right so as to be an aggrieved person. It is sufficient if he shows that he has some tangible interest in the matter. The respondent No.1 has amply proved the aforesaid condition required of maintaining his writ petition and, seek relief through the same writ." If further finds support from the case reported as Umar Din Kiani v. Azad Government and others 1995 SCR 166, wherein it has been held as under:

"Although it is not necessary to qualify as an aggrieved person that a right in a strict juristic sense should be vested in him, yet a person must at least show that he has some interest that the respondent should act in accordance with law." Similar observations were also made in a case reported as Residents of Mirpur v. Mayor Municipal Corporation Mirpur and another 1995 SCR

332. It further finds support from a case reported as Raja Abdul Majid and 24 others v. Syed Abdul Latif Shah and 4 others 2000 PLC (C.S.) 161, wherein at page 165 it was held asunder:

"It may be reiterated once again that to be an aggrieved person it is not necessary that an applicant should be an aggrieved person in strict juristic sense. If his interests are liable to be jeopardized by an act of the functionary of the Government which is not in accordance with law, the applicant for the redressal of his grievance becomes an aggrieved person."

7. The aforesaid reports clearly contain that for proving himself as an aggrieved person it is not necessary that a person should have a strict juristic right but if his interests are liable to be jeopardized or he has some interests then he can be termed as an aggrieved person. In the instant case appellant No.1 obtained the land for the construction of Girls College building with his best efforts and spent crores of Rupees on the building with the help of public. After the construction of the building it was handed over to the Government for running Girls College. This action of the appellant is highly appreciable. The era in which we are living, there are very few people, who had such-like approach and who can act in such manners. The appellants have not constructed the building for their personal benefit but have constructed it for the benefit of public at large. Only the Almighty Allah can reward them. It cannot be said that where a person has made such a tremendous effort by constructing a huge building with crores of Rupees for the benefit of the public at, large and if that building is damaged or any change in the building is made, he will not suffer or feel it. It also could not be said that his interest in that building or institution will remain no more or diminished after handing over the same to the Government and he could not be termed as an aggrieved person. It is pertinent to note that where a person voluntarily constructs a building or raises a project while spending crores of Rupees for the welfare of public at large, and after constructing building or raising project hands over it to the Government and subsequently the Government destroys such project or makes some changes in project due to which basic aim or object of the project is frustrated, then definitely he will be the actual person, who will suffer and be termed as an aggrieved person. Therefore, the learned Judge of the High Court has wrongly held that after handing over the building to the Government, there remains no interest of the appellants and they, could not be termed as aggrieved persons.

8. It would also not be out of place to mention here that in the instant case the notification was issued in 1997 whereby 100 Kanals of land was reserved and notified for the Girls College. The building was completed in the year 2000 and handed over to the Government. After five years of running the College, the Government has reduced the land measuring 50 Kanals from the notification issued in the year 1997. It was enjoined upon the Government at least to hear the appellants before reducing the land because the appellant No.1 had spent his days and nights and a huge amount for the construction of the College building for the benefit of public at large, therefore, the action of Government is not justified. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted and the judgment of the High Court dated 21-11-2005 is set aside. Resultantly the notification issued by the Government on January 6, 2005, whereby 50 Kanals of land was deleted from notification dated December 6,1997, is set aside and is also declared without lawful authority. H.B.T./69/SC(AJ&K) Appeal accepted.