MUHAMMAD ASHIQ and others vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT

' SHEIKH HAKIM ALI, J.--- Petitioners, Muhammad Ashiq and others have filed the instant Civil Review Petition No,34 of 2008, against the judgment, dated 11-3-2008, delivered in C.P. No,1634 of 2005, to get it set aside on the ground that the acquisition proceedings initiated by Land Acquisition Collector of the WAPDA were founded on mala fides as pick and choose of the lands was made by the WAPDA. Explaining the point, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that land of Saith Abid and his relatives, was not acquired although the land was situated within the lands which was being acquired by the WAPDA. In other words, according to learned counsel, WAPDA had not complied with the Rule 5 of Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, which had required WAPDA to acquire the land in compact block. As this method was not adopted in the instant case, therefore, the award was liable to be set aside, resultantly the judgment under review also.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of WAPDA has replied that this plea which has now been raised in this review petition was already agitated at the time of hearing of the civil petition and was also dealt with by this Court in the impugned Judgment. Therefore, this point cannot be reiterated as the scope of review was limited. Learned counsel has referred to Abdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others PLD 1998 SC 363 to support his contentions.

3. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the record.

Unfortunately, a trend has developed during the recent years to challenge each and every judgment through review petition, treating and considering the review as a substitute for appeal proceedings, although scope of review is very limited and restricted. In the judgment of Abdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others PLD 1998 SC 363 cited by the learned counsel, in para. 17, the conclusions in the shape of principles of law were enumerated very beautifully by the Judges of this Court. These norms are still holding the field and cannot be lost sight of while deciding for filing of a petition for review. The point which has now been raised in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner was addressed and exhaustively dealt with in the impugned judgment of this Court. Accordingly, this review petition is only repetition of the plea raised and decided earlier which is again being trumpeted through the arguments. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed.