P L D 1991 Supreme Court 777 (PLP)
SAKHI MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1991 Supreme Court 777 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑‑ Art.189 ‑‑‑ Decision of Supreme Court‑‑‑Binding nature ‑‑‑ Prospectivity‑‑ Acquiescence ‑‑‑ Land acquisition ‑‑‑ Compensation ‑‑‑ Land owner had acquiesced in the award for compensation in 1968 and had not moved in the matter thereafter when the judgment of the Supreme Court was announced 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‑‑ Land owner who had acquiesced in the award invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and contended that the effect of said declaration by Supreme Court was that he was entitled to a more beneficial treatment in accordance ‑with law and that the decision of Supreme Court justified reopening of his claim to the due compensation according to law as declared by the Supreme Court ‑‑‑ Held, consequence of the Supreme Court judgment was that as from the date of decision 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 laid down by the Supreme Court in cases coming up before them for decision ‑‑‑ Decision of the Supreme Court did not have and it could not he contended that it had, the effect of altering the law as from the commencement o relevant law so as to render vo:d of its own force all relevant orders of the Authority or of the High Court made in the light of the earlier interpretation.‑ Land acquisition ‑‑‑ Acquiescence. |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | SAKHI MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Supreme Court 777 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Supreme Court 777 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑‑ Art.189 ‑‑‑ Decision of Supreme Court‑‑‑Binding nature ‑‑‑ Prospectivity‑‑ Acquiescence ‑‑‑ Land acquisition ‑‑‑ Compensation ‑‑‑ Land owner had acquiesced in the award for compensation in 1968 and had not moved in the matter thereafter when the judgment of the Supreme Court was announced 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‑‑ Land owner who had acquiesced in the award invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and contended that the effect of said declaration by Supreme Court was that he was entitled to a more beneficial treatment in accordance ‑with law and that the decision of Supreme Court justified reopening of his claim to the due compensation according to law as declared by the Supreme Court ‑‑‑ Held, consequence of the Supreme Court judgment was that as from the date of decision 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 laid down by the Supreme Court in cases coming up before them for decision ‑‑‑ Decision of the Supreme Court did not have and it could not he contended that it had, the effect of altering the law as from the commencement o relevant law so as to render vo:d of its own force all relevant orders of the Authority or of the High Court made in the light of the earlier interpretation.‑ Land acquisition ‑‑‑ Acquiescence. bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Supreme Court 777 (PLP) (SAKHI MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 17‑1‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in W.P. No. 341 of 1983) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)... ‑‑‑‑ Art.189 ‑‑‑ Decision of Supreme Court‑‑‑Binding nature ‑‑‑ Prospectivity‑‑ Acquiescence ‑‑‑ Land acquisition ‑‑‑ Compensation ‑‑‑ Land owner had acquiesced in the award for compensation in 1968 and had not moved in the matter thereafter when the judgment of the Supreme Court was announced 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‑‑ Land owner who had acquiesced in the award invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court and contended that the effect of said declaration by Supreme Court was that he was entitled to a more beneficial treatment in accordance ‑with law and that the decision of Supreme Court justified reopening of his claim to the due compensation according to law as declared by the Supreme Court ‑‑‑ Held, consequence of the Supreme Court judgment was that as from the date of decision 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 laid down by the Supreme Court in cases coming up before them for decision ‑‑‑ Decision of the Supreme Court did not have and it could not he contended that it had, the effect of altering the law as from the commencement o relevant law so as to render vo:d of its own force all relevant orders of the Authority or of the High Court made in the light of the earlier interpretation.‑ [Land acquisition ‑‑‑ Acquiescence]. Muhammad Yusuf v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1968 S C 101 ref.
Judgment & Decree
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. 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 P L D 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.. 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, 1 do not think this Court can help them after about 15 or 7 years, as the case may be." 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 enure 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. 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." Leave to appeal is refused M.B.A./S‑626/S Leave refused