SAKIII MUHAMMAD and another vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD

ORDER

1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 17-1-1984 whereby a Constitutional petition filed by him was dismissed in limine.

2. ' The petitioner is one of the affected land owners by the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. His land was acquired and he was paid compensation in terms of the award given in 1968. In 1983 he invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the basis of a decision given by this Court in the case of Muhammad Yusuf and others v. Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and others PLD 1976 Supreme Court 752 whereunder the circular under which compensation had been awarded to the land owners and which was not so beneficial to them was held to be without lawful authority. The petitioner contends that the effect of such a declaration was that he was entitled to a more beneficial treatment in accordance with law and that the decision justified reopening of his claim to the due compensation according to the law as declared by this Court.

3. The High Court rejected the contention by observing as. Follows:-- "As the petitioners had acquiesced in the award of 1968, and did not move in the matter even, thereafter, when the judgment of the Supreme Court was announced in 1976, I do not think this Court can help them after about 15 or 7 years, as the case may be."

4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such a declaration as was granted by this Court in the case of Muhammad Yusuf amounted to a judgment in rem and was to ensure to the benefit even in those cases where the matter had concluded and was past and closed. The petitioner need not have been a party to the adjudication in order to benefit from it.

5. ' This contention of the learned counsel runs counter to the law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Yusuf v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1968 SC 101 in the following words:-- "This judgment was delivered on the 2nd November, 1964, and its consequence was that as from that date all Courts subordinate to the Supreme Court and all executive and quasi-judicial authorities were obliged by virtue of the Constitution to apply the rule as laid down by the Supreme Court in cases coming up before them for decision. It did not have, and it cannot be contended that it had, the effect of altering the law as from the commencement of the Act so as to render void of its own force all relevant orders of the Settlement Authorities or of the High Court made in the light of the earlier interpretation which was that the exercise of the delegated power was subject to the provisions in Chapter VI of the Act."

6. Leave to appeal is refused.