Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Another VS Respondent: CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Ajmal Mian, Rustam S. Sidhwa Title:MUHAMMAD AFZAL And Another vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY And
Other Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.2-R of 1989 Writ Petition No.264 of 1987 Date of Judgment:1991-03-24 Reported As: 1991 SCMR 1796 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER AJMAL MIAN, J---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 26-10-1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.264 of 1987 filed by the petitioners, dismissing the same. 2. The facts to be noted are that some land and built-up property owned by the petitioner were acquired by the Capital Development Authority for the purpose of construction of Capital at Islamabad. In respect of the above acquisition an award was given on 25-7-1973. Some of the petitioners or their predecessor filed appeals against the award which were disposed of by the Commissioner, C.DA. On 18-10-1973. After about 12 years petitioners sought review of the award claiming enhancement of compensation in terms of the judgment given by this Court in the case of Muhammad Yusuf and others v. Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and others PLD 1976 SC 752 but the above review was dismissed on 11-11-1985 by the Deputy Commissioner, C.D.A. Appeal against the above review order was dismissed by the Commissioner on 5-8-1986. Thereupon, the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition in 1987 which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal. 3. In support of the above petition, Maulvi Sirajul Haq, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the High Court should have allowed the writ petition as the compensation paid to the petitioners was contrary to the law declared by this Court in the above-referred case. We are unable to subscribe to the above submission as the Supreme Court had given judgment in the above case in 1976. Review of the award of 1973 was sought on the
---
## Page 2
basis of the above judgment after the expiry of nearly nine years. The review, therefore, was rightly declined and so also the appeal and writ petition arising therefrom. The petitioners' case was a past and closed transaction which could not have been re-opened after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the award. The petition has no merits. Leave is accordingly refused.