Mst. AZIZA KHATUN ETC. vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition challenging the compensation awarded for land acquisition. The petitioners, whose land in village Bar Khanzada was acquired under the Capital Development Ordinance, 1960, sought higher compensation rates, arguing that their land should be valued based on rates applied to land in village Chahan. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the compensation assessment made by the Deputy Collector and Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the assessment of market value is primarily a question of fact. Since the lower Tribunals provided cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioners' claim—specifically noting that village Chahan is situated closer to the urban area of Rawalpindi and thus possesses higher value—the High Court correctly determined that interference under its constitutional jurisdiction was not justified. The principle laid down is that where Tribunals have lawfully exercised their jurisdiction in determining factual questions like land valuation, the High Court will not interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction.
- Is the assessment of market value for land acquisition primarily a question of fact?
- Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with a compensation award based on factual findings by competent Tribunals?
- Does the proximity of land to an urban area constitute a valid basis for differentiating compensation rates between villages?
- Capital Development Ordinance, 1960
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J-After a round of litigation up to the level of Lahore High Court, petitioners, for the second time, filed Writ Petition No. 192 of 1981 in the High Court seeking to challenge the amount of compensation awarded to them for the acquisition of their land in village Bar Khanzada under the Capital Development Ordinance, 1960. On remand of the case by the High Court by the earlier judgment, the Deputy Collector (Capital Development Authority) made a fresh award by the order dated 24th July, 1977. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Capital Development Authority) with the modification, however, that he awarded 25 increase in the compensation amount, but otherwise dismissed petitioners' appeal. These orders were then challenged by the petitioners in the subsequent Writ Petition No. 192 of 1981 which was, however, dis--missed by the High Court for the reason that the assessment of market value primarily being a question of fact and the Tribunals having given cogent reasons for discarding petitioners' claim for higher rates of compensation, interference in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was not justified.
2. Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the compensation awarded to the petitioners is based on the assessment of land in village Haida Haleem, which itself rests on the award of compensation in respect of lands in village Chahan, and since the compensation for all classifications of land in village Chahan was later on fixed at higher rates, the petitioners are also entitled to the same rates.
3. This plea has been rejected by the High Court on the ground that "it has been maintained by the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 24th July 1977 that village Chahan is situated at a distance of 3-4 miles from village Bar Khanzada and its land being nearer to urban area of Rawalpindi is more valuable and, therefore, the compensation assessed for village Chahan cannot be awarded to the petitioners".
4. The findings of the Deputy Commissioner were upheld by the Commis--sioner, and the High Court, therefore, very rightly, refused to interfere on the ground that the impugned orders had been lawfully passed within the scope of jurisdiction vested in the Tribunals.
5. The petition is dismissed in limine.