PESHAWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute involving the Peshawar Development Authority and respondents who purchased a specific city wall from the Provincial Government. The respondents filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession after the petitioners refused to approve their building construction plans, claiming the wall possessed historical and archaeological significance. The trial court, the appellate court, and the Peshawar High Court in revision concurrently found that the wall was constructed in 1935 and lacked the alleged historical or archaeological importance, thereby decreeing the suit in favor of the respondents. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners challenged these concurrent findings. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court affirmed that the respondents' purchase of the property was established and the petitioners' objection regarding the wall's historical status was factually unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, upholding the concurrent judgments of the courts below.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of a legal infirmity?
- Does a property owner have a right to construct on purchased land if the authority's objection regarding its historical status is factually unfounded?
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15-6-1995 of the Peshawar High Court passed in Civil Revision No,16 of 1994 filed by the petitioners against the concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below decreeing respondents Nos.1 to 8 suit for declaration cum permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession of the City wall described in the annexed plans as 'A' and 'B' measuring 180 sq.Feet, hereinafter referred to as the wall, dismissing the same by affirming the above concurrent judgments/decrees.
2. The brief facts are that respondents Nos.1 to 8/plaintiffs purchased the wall for a sum of Rs,43,567 on 20-7-1987 from the Provincial Government. When the above respondents submitted plan for the construction of building on the site of the wall, the same was refused by the petitioners on the ground that it was a historical building having an archaeological feature. This was resisted by above respondents. They inter alia filed a suit, which was decreed in spite of contest by the petitioners. It was found that factually the wall was constructed in the year 1935 and, therefore, it had no historical or archaeological importance. The appeal and the revision also failed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition Sardar Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the petitioners, is unable to point out any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the three Courts below as to warrant grant of leave. The fact that the above respondents had purchased the wall for the aforesaid sum stands proved. The objection, which was raised by the petitioners, was found to be not sustainable by the Courts below. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused.